250:
effort in getting a real academic expert editing for
Knowledge - this person chairs over 10 committees in her university and I had to beg her for a long time before getting her accepting to edit for Knowledge! It would have been far better if you had just done nothing, leaving the merging to an editor who is qualified for the task. May I ask whether you knew Dowlatabadi at all? Whether you have ever read anything by him? If the answers to these questions are in the negative, then the logical thing would be to leave the merging to a qualified person. I have thousand and one reasons for not having interfered with this person's edits myself (she is invited by me, and I do not wish to appear as being her mentor or supervisor here); judging by your explanation, it appears that you must somehow believe that I must be unfamiliar with the principles governing the editing of Knowledge articles - if so, then I suffice by saying that you are mistaken. I should add that the reason this person has not referred to her own books/published papers is my earlier warning to her that in editing Knowledge entries one should be mindful that others do not view one's edits as an act of self-promotion; that one should preferably not refer to one's own books and papers. I request you therefore once more to restore this person's edit to its original form. Please do
279:
to explain my actions in accordance with the guidelines of
Knowledge as I interpret them. I have already said I have no familiarity with the subject, which is why I have neither added to nor disputed the factual portions of the article. That said, my mind is unchanged about the tone of much of the merged article, but in the spirit of compromise I have tried to be more flexible, and incorporated some additional information, as much as I could conceivably justify to myself. I also added an "unreferenced" tag to the article, it being simpler than challenging individual assertions. If you still strongly disagree with my actions, you are certainly free to correct them yourself as you see fit. You may have your own personal reasons for not doing so, but I can hardly be expected to take those into account in my own actions, and I, for one, will not stop you or argue with you further about this article. To the contrary, I would strongly recommend you expand this article yourself. If there are no better sources besides your friend's books to cite, and if they truly are well-respected in academia, then I think they can justified as not mere self-promotion, and I will support you if anyone accuses them of such.
170:
universities (she is an author of several highly-acclaimed books, and has a
Knowledge biography; I shall not name her name, since that would be in violation of her privacy). The reason I am almost certain that this person is the same one as I was talking to, is the fact that the names we discussed at the time almost exactly coincide with those she has been working on since joining Knowledge (when we were talking, she told me that she would join Knowledge and start working on a number of specific biographies). This is the main reason why I did not do the merging myself, as that would be tantamount to putting this person's text on my own name. Given these facts, I should be most grateful if you would kindly make a complete merging of the longer text. Naturally, you can always attach the "reference needed"-tag to the statements that in your opinion are not properly referenced. With thanks in advance for the trouble,
22:
707:
312:
378:
487:
508:
529:
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
278:
BehnamFarid, if you are still watching this talk page, then I apologize for taking so long to respond. Anyway, the last thing I want is to cause either you or the original contributor any offense. If I came across as condescending towards either of you, that was not my intention; I was merely trying
190:
with the article is irrelevant. I have no opinion on the subject, and I'm sure your professor acquaintance is perfectly knowledgeable. In fact, if she's written books about
Dowlatabadi, those might be excellent sources to cite for this article. However, an original essay from even the most qualified
142:
Hi. You are correct in that I did include the full text of the source article in the merge. This was intentional, as much of that article was written in what seemed to me an essay-like tone and was generally fairly unencyclopedic. For example, look at this sentence: "Using a mellifluous language, he
440:
deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with
Knowledge's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that
254:
force me into writing an epistle to you before you decide to comply with my earlier request from you. I repeat what I wrote earlier: please tag statements that in your opinion need to be referenced by a "reference needed" tag. I trust that you will not let this issue be turned into an unnecessary
249:
Dear
Mycroft, while I appreciate your intentions, please accept from me that you are not being cooperative. What you have done is in essence curtailing someone else's work by applying a set of rigid rules pertaining to editing Knowledge entries. By doing so, you have just annulled my considerable
669:
experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a
573:
I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job. Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use
Knowledge as a
143:
creates a prose which is both delightful and down-to-earth. The rich tapestry of his style comes largely from the capacious memory he has at his disposal." This may or may not be true, but it is utterly subjective, and doesn't actually convey any information besides the author's opinion (see
169:
Dear
Mycroft, thank you for your prompt response. I believe that I know the person who has written the text that you have axed. I know this by the fact that one week before this person started editing on Knowledge, I was in touch with a professor of literature at one of the better American
392:, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see
222:
On a related note, you should not worry about "putting her text in your own name." First of all, it's not her text, and second, it wouldn't be in your name. Knowledge articles are not written by or attributed to single authors, and no contributor "owns" any article.
442:
208:
That said, I have reproduced the entirety of the text from the source article in the target article's talk page, to make it easier for future editors to see what was removed, and possibly salvage more if they deem it
147:). If, on the other hand, one wanted to assert that his writing "is well known" for certain qualities, that would be an appropriate inclusion (assuming it was appropriately cited, or at least was a statement that
612:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
185:
It's not just a matter of being unreferenced. If that were the case, I would be happy to do as you say. It's the tone and scope of the unused text which is the problem. I should also reiterate that whether I
124:). Your undertaking does not look like merging to me. I should be grateful if you did the merging with some more attention to detail. For completeness, the longer version of the article at issue is due to
480:
I have just uploaded a new (and better) version of the picture with
Mycroft Holmes that you use on your user page. Don't hesitate to use the new picture, the old one should be deleted in the coming days.
570:
Since you are an active participant in the
Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Knowledge entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?
492:
66:: For a new discussion, please use the "new section" button at the top of the page. I will reply on this page instead of yours, to avoid fragmenting discussions.
151:
be cited). Again, I am not saying that is not the case. In fact, I am completely unfamiliar with Dowlatabadi, and I will defer to those more knowledgeable.
339:, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
665:
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most
768:
658:
is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group
686:
674:
637:
460:
555:
682:
633:
192:
772:
359:
39:
624:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
760:
747:
718:
696:
629:
764:
401:
340:
75:
714:
700:
101:
432:
48:
654:
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the
655:
534:
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
453:
405:
426:
385:
371:
582:
554:
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see
311:
118:
Dear Mycroft, could you please clarify the reason for removing so much of the text, as evidenced by this:
491:
327:
82:
574:
newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.
794:
397:
97:
537:
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
396:
for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on
132:
125:
776:
625:
112:
96:
I'll take that to heart. I was just taking a quick look and tagging them for someone else to fix.
446:
54:
486:
411:
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
784:
743:
601:
592:
578:
530:
in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
355:
255:
dispute between you and I; we have no disagreements on fundamental issues. With kind regards,
621:
605:
334:
256:
191:
author is still an original essay, and it doesn't belong on Knowledge. I refer you again to
171:
136:
78:
50:
21:
620:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
790:
416:
617:
609:
393:
577:
Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much,
730:
613:
526:
430:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
389:
280:
224:
152:
144:
351:
729:
While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be
388:
requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under
377:
566:
New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
318:
543:
52:
783:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the
507:
129:
122:
798:
690:
641:
586:
467:
364:
288:
232:
160:
105:
86:
549:
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
608:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge
322:
55:
15:
705:
506:
436:
explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for
376:
135:
concerning the details of this longer version. Thank you.
128:, and at the time I placed this message for this editor:
771:
process can result in deletion without discussion, and
753:
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing
673:
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at
119:
736:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
681:
and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying.
74:
Thanks for your quick clean-up and categorization of
600:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
441:if the article does get deleted, you can contact
670:dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
390:section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion
427:the page that has been nominated for deletion
8:
445:to request that a copy be emailed to you.
400:subjects and should provide references to
306:
331:was updated with a fact from the article
742:notice, but please explain why in your
7:
787:of each individual file for details.
656:current system we introduced in 2011
731:deleted for any of several reasons
721:because of the following concern:
131:. So, perhaps you wish to consult
14:
756:{{proposed deletion/dated files}}
739:{{proposed deletion/dated files}}
626:review the candidates' statements
502:
490:
485:
310:
257:--BF 01:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
20:
725:unused, low-res, no obvious use
193:Knowledge:What Knowledge is not
172:--BF 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
137:--BF 14:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
632:. For the Election committee,
602:Arbitration Committee election
593:ArbCom elections are now open!
1:
691:04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
642:16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
647:New deal for page patrollers
775:allows discussion to reach
715:File:Northport location.gif
701:File:Northport location.gif
628:and submit your choices on
473:New image of Mycroft Holmes
468:18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
365:23:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
289:19:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
233:00:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
121:(please compare with this:
814:
767:exist. In particular, the
683:MediaWiki message delivery
634:MediaWiki message delivery
587:15:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
161:14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
76:Public Libraries (journal)
70:Public Libraries (journal)
64:INSTRUCTIONS FOR USER TALK
761:proposed deletion process
384:A tag has been placed on
106:17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
87:21:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
284:
228:
156:
799:01:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
341:Did you know? talk page
727:
710:
511:
499:New Page Patrol survey
381:
723:
719:proposed for deletion
709:
606:Arbitration Committee
510:
386:Velvet Angels (album)
380:
372:Velvet Angels (album)
773:files for discussion
748:the file's talk page
525:Hello Mycroft7! The
610:arbitration process
443:one of these admins
370:Speedy deletion of
113:Mahmoud Dowlatabadi
765:deletion processes
711:
677:New Page Reviewers
662:has been created.
622:arbitration policy
516:New page patrol –
512:
382:
697:Proposed deletion
660:New Page Reviewer
563:
562:
558:
518:Survey Invitation
477:Hello Mycroft7 !
347:
346:
61:
60:
805:
788:
758:
757:
741:
740:
708:
553:
503:
494:
489:
465:
458:
451:
422:
421:
415:
408:their content.
402:reliable sources
363:
335:Solar Challenger
314:
307:
303:Solar Challenger
56:
24:
16:
813:
812:
808:
807:
806:
804:
803:
802:
782:
769:speedy deletion
755:
754:
738:
737:
706:
704:
649:
630:the voting page
596:
568:
521:
501:
496:
475:
461:
454:
447:
419:
413:
412:
375:
350:
305:
116:
98:Newport Backbay
94:
72:
57:
51:
29:
12:
11:
5:
811:
809:
779:for deletion.
759:will stop the
703:
694:
648:
645:
599:
595:
590:
567:
564:
561:
560:
551:
548:
546:to take part.
539:
538:
535:
523:
514:
500:
497:
483:
474:
471:
394:Knowledge:Stub
374:
368:
345:
344:
315:
304:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
178:
177:
176:
175:
164:
163:
133:User:Nadim2008
126:User:Nadim2008
115:
109:
93:
90:
71:
68:
59:
58:
53:
49:
47:
44:
43:
35:
34:
31:
30:
25:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
810:
801:
800:
796:
792:
786:
780:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
751:
749:
745:
734:
732:
726:
722:
720:
716:
702:
698:
695:
693:
692:
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
671:
668:
663:
661:
657:
652:
651:Hi Mycroft7,
646:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
594:
591:
589:
588:
584:
580:
575:
571:
565:
559:
557:
550:
547:
545:
542:Please click
536:
533:
532:
531:
528:
522:
520:
519:
509:
505:
504:
498:
495:
493:
488:
482:
478:
472:
470:
469:
466:
464:
459:
457:
452:
450:
444:
439:
435:
434:
433:the talk page
429:
428:
418:
409:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
379:
373:
369:
367:
366:
361:
357:
353:
342:
338:
337:
336:
330:
329:
328:Did you know?
324:
320:
316:
313:
309:
308:
302:
290:
286:
282:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
258:
253:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
234:
230:
226:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
194:
189:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
173:
168:
167:
166:
165:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
140:
139:
138:
134:
130:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
108:
107:
103:
99:
91:
89:
88:
84:
80:
77:
69:
67:
65:
46:
45:
42:
41:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
785:page history
781:
763:, but other
752:
744:edit summary
735:
728:
724:
712:
676:
675:
672:
666:
664:
659:
653:
650:
597:
579:Factseducado
576:
572:
569:
552:
541:
540:
524:
517:
515:
513:
484:
479:
476:
462:
455:
448:
437:
431:
424:
410:
383:
348:
333:
332:
326:
251:
209:appropriate.
187:
148:
117:
95:
73:
63:
62:
38:
26:
425:the top of
79:JohnRussell
791:FastilyBot
618:topic bans
556:NPP Survey
777:consensus
717:has been
713:The file
614:site bans
319:18 August
145:WP:NOT#OR
92:Thank you
40:Archive 1
789:Thanks,
281:Mycroft7
225:Mycroft7
188:disagree
153:Mycroft7
27:Archives
667:current
456:Helpful
398:notable
352:Dan1980
746:or on
604:. The
438:speedy
417:hangon
406:verify
404:that
360:stalk
149:could
795:talk
687:talk
638:talk
583:talk
544:HERE
356:talk
323:2008
285:talk
229:talk
157:talk
102:talk
83:talk
699:of
598:Hi,
527:WMF
463:One
449:The
423:to
317:On
252:not
111:On
797:)
750:.
733:.
689:)
640:)
616:,
585:)
420:}}
414:{{
358:♦
349:—
343:.
325:,
321:,
287:)
231:)
159:)
104:)
85:)
793:(
685:(
636:(
581:(
362:)
354:(
283:(
259:.
227:(
195:.
174:.
155:(
100:(
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
