User talk:Arms & Hearts/Archive 2

230:

same community I'm trying to document, in fact. Basically, the community involved is the tiny, and withering, hang gliding community. There is, of course, an article here on WP about hang gliding in itself, with supporting information on Francis Rogallo and a few others from the ancient history of the sport. But there is no mention of any of the founding fathers of modern flight, like the Wills brothers or Bill Bennett or Ben Abruzzo. And that's a shame. Because all these people are literally dying off, and their history is largely being lost. Ole Olson is famous as the guy who single-handedly popularized hang gliding tours of Mexico. I wanted to say that in so many words in the article, but I was deferring to Ole's own sense of modesty. So the simple truth is this: Ole is a famous figure in the hang gliding community, knows and writes about a vast swath of HG history, and a very large proportion of the HG community knows exactly who he is. If more material to that effect would make the article publication-worthy, I'm glad to add it. But as I say, I'm just trying to grope my way through this process with some regard to the people who have a stake in hang gliding history. And by the way, not all the works listed were self-published, though his three books are. So since you tagged the article for deletion, I'll ask you what you'd like to see done to the article to make it WP-worthy. Sure hope Ole doesn't have to die!

408:. One argument used for his addition involves the assumption he'll do good, despite a lack of polling data to confirm this. This idea clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL, which prohibits speculation or original research. Additionally, adding him violates agreed-upon consensus, which requires a candidate to poll 5% or better to be added to the infobox. Currently, Clements has yet to poll 5%, and 'Other' polling 9% does not count towards him; aside from being akin to 'Some other candidate', it is impossible to confirm what percentage knew he was running and specifically chose that option, compared to those that picked it out of dissatisfaction with the two candidates or those that plan to cast write-in ballots. 1403:

the impression that you wish to marginalize those candidates who actually have filed for the seat, but obviously aren't planning on spending a million dollars on their campaign. Knowledge (XXG) is a non-commercial site for a reason. The corporate media needs to take their content in a certain direction in order to attract advertisers. Those considerations don't apply here. Furthermore, I only use citation needed when it's obviously necessary, not when I'm trying to tell another editor what I do and don't consider to be my job versus theirs. Addressing the first two such tags, I found

1398:

much of the four-year cycle as possible, often to the exclusion of real news, it amounts to overkill. In other words, if you weren't aware that there was a presidential election next year before you read it in that article, I would think that you're in need of help that Knowledge (XXG) can't provide. Seeing as how this is an article about an event in Alaska, providing content related to Alaska, rather than D.C., might prove helpful. I would not attempt to say that

1863: 1740: 1254: 1636:, specifically the word "possible" and the candidate's denial that he'd "definitely enter the race." I see that's since been removed from the cited article, which has been updated to reflect that he's definitely running (I'll update our article to reflect this). So I think any confusion here stems from the changes made to the AP article, not any especially complex or stringent definitional issues. (For what it's worth I'll add that I've found my own 32: 949: 1162: 1120: 181:

which links might have turned 'live' on any particular day, and even more unfortunately there are few (aka no other) Wikipedians interested in doing so. It's quite time-consuming to find these links, and there's no particular pattern I can discern in which elections these sources are currently polling for (other than the 'safe' elections which I've not currently working on). So many elections, so little time.

1002: 777: 967:, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Knowledge (XXG), has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page 1084:

one that got deleted for understandable reasons: Giving geographic reference to where each new district is as it would explain why some members of Congress no long live in their district (ie Judy Biggert no long lives in the 13th because it now spans Downstate Illinois from Champaign Urbana to Madison County). I have two maps from which to do this. They are PDFs.

1532: 2462:

Yeah, that was what I had in mind but I'm not sure whether it's permissible given the results of AfDs (and RfDs?). Either way my main complaint is with the replication of content; I don't really have much of an opinion on what should be where beyond that and don't especially want to get involved in a

1706:

I have filed paperwork with the FEC and am attending Democratic Town Committee meetings. However, I will not be fundraising unless I gain ballot access by getting support from 15% of the district convention delegates. When I tried to add my name and website to Knowledge (XXG), I was informed it was

1611:

Is "announcing" different than "declaring"? Since you seem to have experience with creating and curating these election pages, I was wondering what the normal cutoff point was for a candidate being "declared." Is it actually creating a campaign committee and declaring one's candidacy with the FEC? Or

1553:

is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us

1083:

No worries. You were correct in getting rid of many of my edits. I have a couple of articles I almost babysit. They aren't visited very often, but I watch them. I'm still very new to this and do not know all the ins and outs. As far as changes go this is what I would like to discuss with you. The big

869:

Don't be silly, of course I'm not going to remove the comment. Attempting to condense a 3,000 word RfC into a series of one-word responses is hardly going to capture the nuances of the arguments made, or allow readers to give due weight to each point of view, which is crucial to consensus-building on

591:

attempt to compromise the integrity of Knowledge (XXG)." (The italics are in the original.) In simpler terms, this means that vandalism is any edit intended to make Knowledge (XXG) worse rather than better. In the post you quote above, I question whether adding a fourth candidate to the infobox meets

1464:

I don't handle soundbites very well, if that's what you're getting at. Reliable sources are everywhere. Too many articles are edited, often with obvious selective sourcing, to make it appear as if that isn't the case. Reading between the lines, it gives the impression that editors are holding out

1196:

Thank you for creating the Vermont 2012 Governor's race article. In the source you listed, it says Phil Scott has "all but said he’s not going to run for governor.". Do you think it warrants putting him down as "declined"? Normally I wait until the candidate announces such, but I think that would be

1711:

Thanks for your interest and co-operation. Your adding information about your own campaign would be no more or less of a conflict of interest than someone adding information about a campaign they work for. If you think other editors may have conflicts of interest, you should consider discussing the

1413:

Political party candidates with the highest number of votes from each race in the Primary Election will advance to General Elections and will appear on this list after the Primary Election has been certified. No-party candidates who filed for office with the Division of Elections on or before June

1397:

This is starting to smack of the suggestion of page ownership by an SPA. The first instance was "rm trivia," which I addressed in my subsequent edit. It's trivial to mention the presidential election. Seeing as how our corporate media in the United States cover every presidential election for as

1314:

Blanking, illegitimate Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. In your case, you just blanked out

1227:

Welcome for the barnstar, wanted to express my thanks for all the work! When I saw the "all but said" I was also 50-50 on it. Wanted to ask your take since you created the page. I assume leave it for now. As you said, I'm sure more will come out through this year, so let's wait for a better source!

630:

Hello, I'm darkalter2000 and I created the page on Shelly Laurenston which you have put up for deletion. You put it up for not meeting notibility guidlines but I thought an author who had a New York Times Bestseller would be considered notible. Am I incorrect in that? I thought a book talked about

229:

Hi - I'm touching base w/ you re. the John "Ole" Olson page recently deleted. Yes, I've reviewed the "so you've created a new article" materials, and I'm sure it's my own slow groping for the right format and materials that got the page deleted. I've been soliciting some assistance from exactly the

196:

I don't see the relevance of that distinction. The outcome for the average reader of the article is the same: he or she clicks a link promising to show a graph of polls, and receives a 404 error. In future, I'll comment them out rather than delete them, and it'd probably be most productive if you'd

2562:

Enough references have been given that are very much independent of the subject and have received significant coverage in reliable sources which are national newspapers - the references mentioned as well as references added. The snaps by themselves authenticate the claims mentioned in the article.

1402:

is not a reliable source. However, neither Miller nor Young have actually filed for the seat, so that article amounts to speculation with the real purpose being to namedrop big-name political figures. I get the impression that you wish to maintain the primacy of that source, however. I also get

322:

I'm glad you agree that edit warring over such a minor issue would be counterproductive, and I obviously agree that the personal attack was completely inappropriate. I disagree with your contention that my links were irrelevant, but if you're not planning on continuing to revert I see no reason to

180:

Those aren't 'dead links' but 'future live' links which will become live as the election season nears. If you want to use the "comment out" option for now, feel free, but it's fairly unproductive to delete them completely. Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time in which to constantly check out

2489:

I am not sure why the above page was suggested to be deleted as just using google would have made it clear about the yeoman service of Sensei Devadanam of handpicking street children and making champions out of them. He has been honored with the President's Medal and also was involved actively in

2161:

First off, posting a template on my page is the coward's way out. If you have a problem, say it, tor a request for sources, make one. Candidate websites should be enough since an establishment of candidacy is not one of those things covered by self-published sources. The article is useless and

2075:...regarding the 14th CD on the Illinois 2012 Elections, was wondering why it was removed. The explanation for many of the edits made were : "rv addition of content w/o a reliable source". The endorsement linked to the former candidates facebook page, is that not considered reliable? 2590:: if other editors are in agreement that the article should be deleted then it will be, but if significant objections (such as yours) are raised, then it might not be. The process really wouldn't work if we all just expressed our opinions on each other's talk pages. Thanks again. – 1294:

So the vandal comes on my page and pretends not to be a vandal. Right. When you come to a page detailing political races, then erase ALL of the controversial and verified things that one particular candidate out of 5 candidate has done, I'm sorry. You're

1212:

I don't think I have any strong opinion either way: I took the view that "all but said" explicitly means "hasn't said" and so decided against it, but I'm open to the alternative, especially if there's a better source. Thanks for the barnstar by the way!

2563:

More references were not provided as it would clutter the whole section. With no bias at all, I, Sailesh Varma, the author of this article, have evidenced whatever has been mentioned and can vouch for all that is mentioned. Thank You Sailesh Varma

1416:

So is the issue here the placement of the citation? If so, that doesn't require a citation needed tag. Or is the real issue here that I'm not limiting my sources to corporate media outlets outside of Alaska, who are likely to present a detached,

1793: 118: 1789: 159:

OK, thanks. I took a quick look at the NM tables and it has some good ideas though a series of single-candidate tables seems a bit long. I might try to split the differences somehow, maybe combining parts of it. Thanks for the feedback.

2490:

training the joint forces during the first Gulf War and was the Guest of Honor for his services. If more references are required, that could have been suggested instead of blindly suggesting deletion of a living legend - Sailesh Varma

1631:

My experience is that there's no hard-and-fast standard and that it's usually better to judge such ambiguities on a case-by-case basis. My main reason for thinking Cramer shouldn't go under the declared header was the quote I put in

278:

in the article to ensure that it isn't deleted again. Finally, if you're interested in continuing to contribute to Knowledge (XXG) in this specific area, you might wish to do so in collaboration with, or under the guidance of, the

1599: 1591: 566:

The question is whether adding a fourth candidate to the infobox constitutes a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Knowledge (XXG). In my view it clearly doesn't, and the page should be unprotected.

879:

You're being silly. If we don't poll, than we may never come to "consensus." How do you even define consensus? 100% approval? What happens if 100 editors oppose putting Stein in the infobox and only two editors

338:

Thanks for your welcome. I'm not entirely sure why you gave this IP such an edit, though -- it hasn't edited anything in 5 days, so far as I can tell, and it wasn't me that did the editing. But thanks anyways!

1355: 907:

Yes I agree. Polling is a substitute for discussion, and I am not in anyway trying to do that. I am simply holding a vote. People can still discuss this matter. So again, please remove your false accusation.--

95: 1262: 206:

Actually I have been checking, but I couldn't find the markup code for commenting out until today. It used to be elsewhere on the edit page, and I don't have the codes I only use occasionally memorized.

1781: 1606:

Republican Kevin Cramer opened his fourth congressional race late Thursday, announcing in a short video on his campaign website that he would seek the GOP endorsement for North Dakota's lone U.S. House

1880:

newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

1757:

newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

1748: 1271:

newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

1871: 91: 608: 1130:

the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on

2619: 2607: 1377:; the website of the Modern Whig Party (or any other party) isn't suitable. If a newspaper or news organisation had written about Mr. Martin, that'd be an appropriate source. Thanks. – 1598:

Hello. Two days ago, you rightly reverted my edit that listed Kevin Cramer a declared candidate simply because he had filed paperwork with the FEC. In the edit, though, you added

870:

Knowledge (XXG). I understand that we all have real-life time constraints and endless debates on these issues become pretty wearing, but abandoning discussion isn't the answer. –

1485:

is not. And that's exactly what the Palinistas are expecting the world to believe. Other examples abound, often due to a myopic understanding of the subject matter involved.

2579: 2535: 2162:

outdated as it stands, and I doubt there are many editors who care about the California elections. It's verifiable as it stands, but a verifiable, outdated piece of crap.--

854:

Your comment was completely un-necessary. We already had a discussion and a straw poll was not a substitute for that, it was a summery of it. Please remove that comment.--

2404:, shouldn't the former redirect to the latter? (I'm vaguely aware there's been at least one XfD on these articles, so I'm wary of effecting those changes myself.) – 1707:

a conflict of interest. I understand the concept, but how is it less of a conflict others have hired staff that make sure their information is included? Randy Yale

2441: 2397: 2041: 2029: 968: 2343: 2331: 898:

people feel the way they do is crucial to determining whether consensus exists. That's simply not possible if polling is used as a substitute for discussion. –

1955: 1943: 685:

policy, the article won't be deleted until a week after I added the tag; in this case September 9.) If you have any further questions feel free to ask here. –

1174:

We may have seen differently on a few edits here and there, but I did want to come by and recognize the work you do to election-related articles! Thank you!

1803: 305:

Neither link you listed is of any value in explaining the revert of my revert, but I'm fine with letting it sit since it's just a style change. Either way,

2214: 2202: 1612:

is a candidate who is actively campaigning, but only technically has an exploratory committee also considered a "declared" candidate? These pages are

2095: 2091: 1616:

or mine, but for future reference, I want to know the general guidelines you and your fellow editors have used in the past for such things. Thanks. —

664: 251:

of its subject. Notability is the standard by which the Knowledge (XXG) community decides whether subjects deserve articles, and is summed up in the

1315:

almost the whole section on Mr. Mullen, including all of the verifiable references with no valid reason. You are SLAM DUNK a vandal in this case.--

671:

best seller list isn't one of the criteria, but if you feel that Ms. Laurenston meets any of the other criteria or the GNG, feel free to remove the

1640:

positions on similar issues to be in the minority amongst others who favour a more concrete approach, so don't take my comments above to mean that

1414:

1, 2012 at 5:00 p.m. and who submitted their signatures of support on or before August 28, 2012 will appear on the General Election candidate list.

1354:

My apologies, I am still learning how to properly contribute to Knowledge (XXG). When you get a chance, could you check to make sure I edited the

1450:

revert any & all of my edits to that page. Also feel free to reiterate any specific points here, ideally in a more coherent manner. Thanks. –

284: 1877: 1855: 1754: 1733: 1268: 1247: 963: 1799: 2628: 2623:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2352: 2347:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2309: 2304:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2266: 2261:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2223: 2218:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2136: 2131:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2050: 2045:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 2007: 2002:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1964: 1959:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 1921: 1916:. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see 723: 355: 340: 1579: 60: 50: 2564: 647: 141: 2506: 1316: 1296: 750: 2624: 2348: 2305: 2262: 2219: 2132: 2046: 2003: 1960: 1917: 239: 2167: 1644:

draws a more definitive line in the sand over "declared" v. "announced" and/or the significance of having filed with the FEC.) –

675: 2614: 2338: 2295: 2252: 2209: 2122: 2036: 1993: 1950: 1907: 660: 2181:, which I don't feel obliged to respond to. I think you raise valid points though, so if you'd like to discuss them in a more 1796:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 800:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1055:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

816:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

1912: 1900: 1419: 1103: 354:

Never mind. Apparently, the welcome came 5 days ago, and I apparently just got it now. Odd, that. Thanks anyways, though.

2423: 1008: 783: 2127: 2115: 443:. Somebody hacked into it last year and has it deleted. I asked wikipedia for help last year and never got a response. 2163: 1411:

in barely more than the time it probably took you to tag the article. As to the third tag, the cited article states:

1069: 1481: 1056: 1042: 817: 803: 17: 1135: 424: 2098:

is especially relevant. Also, welcome to Knowledge (XXG)! Feel free to ask any other questions you might have. –

1037:

Agriculture Commissioner in 1964, is the longest-serving state agriculture commissioner in United States history?

373: 235: 2396:

Done. I don't see much value in replicating content already available elsewhere though. If (e.g.) everything at

265:

that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

70: 2445: 2401: 2378: 1998: 1986: 1684: 359: 344: 1373:

I'm sorry to say I've removed the reference to Mr. Martin again. Knowledge (XXG) articles need to be based on

2568: 1558:

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.

643: 481: 417: 2494: 2080: 1091: 635: 2502: 1889: 1578:

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see

1503:

and make the changes you'd like to see. Stop complaining, or at least stop complaining on my talk page. –

1065: 1001: 776: 290:(or another you feel is more appropriate.) If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Thanks. – 231: 212: 186: 1658:

Oh, those darn newswriters, changing their stories. Thanks for your help, and for updating the article. —

584: 2300: 2288: 1320: 1300: 1013: 788: 744: 639: 391: 383: 2498: 1613: 1052: 813: 271:

There's more information available at the link. If you feel Mr. Olson meets this criterion you need to

2076: 1695: 1680: 2595: 2547: 2468: 2409: 2190: 2103: 1721: 1649: 1508: 1455: 1382: 1339: 1218: 912: 885: 859: 616: 573: 532: 508: 126: 1561:

If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

405: 2453: 2431: 2386: 1844: 1663: 1621: 1490: 1442:

I don't really understand your argument. But if you think my edits to the Alaska article amount to

1432: 1233: 1202: 1179: 440: 439:

I've been editing Knowledge (XXG) for a long time, and wanted help to retrieve my previous account

103: 1862: 1739: 1687:. Weigh in if you like — though the admins seem to be handling it fine without you, actually. :-) 1408: 1404: 1253: 144:? It is a lot of columns, but I'm not sure I'm seeing what you think needs to be added. Thanks! -- 1692: 754: 707: 631:

in a national newspaper would qualify for notibility, but I am kinda new at this so I'm unsure.

410: 312: 76: 2539: 2182: 1465:

their favorite sources as all-important. Witness the deafening silence to the revelation that

2638: 2362: 2319: 2276: 2233: 2146: 2060: 2017: 1974: 1931: 1885: 1819: 1766: 1554:

in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

1280: 1099: 983: 500: 208: 182: 165: 149: 1713: 1500: 1447: 1331: 682: 273: 2642: 2599: 2572: 2551: 2510: 2472: 2457: 2435: 2413: 2390: 2366: 2323: 2280: 2237: 2194: 2171: 2150: 2107: 2084: 2064: 2021: 1978: 1935: 1893: 1848: 1823: 1770: 1725: 1667: 1653: 1625: 1512: 1494: 1459: 1436: 1386: 1367: 1363: 1343: 1324: 1304: 1284: 1237: 1222: 1206: 1183: 1147: 1143: 1107: 1073: 987: 925: 916: 902: 889: 874: 863: 844: 837: 759: 740: 734: 712: 689: 651: 620: 596: 577: 549: 536: 522: 512: 488: 463: 458: 394: 387: 363: 348: 327: 316: 294: 216: 201: 190: 169: 153: 130: 107: 74: 72: 31: 2587: 2583: 2519: 2178: 1550: 1470: 1443: 1131: 948: 706:

If you're sure it's well sourced & NPOV then I'm of course happy to see it added back.

701: 542: 280: 253: 2613: