680:
the same info, but in terms of political party, a third formated based on state, and a forth formated with
Membership changes. Basically, he does not want any discussion of party strength or membership changes on the main article, and would rather those be forks, because it is easier to present information to people unfamiliar with the subject. My view is that sending people to 4 different articles with the same info isn't simpler, but up till now I haven't made a stink out of it. But now he is objecting to what concensus determine should be with all of the ordinal congresses, and has gone of to recreate his own duplicate page in his own image. I feel we are left with no choice but to delete these articles. If there is a way to do a mass nomination for all "XXth Congress - subject" forks, we should pursue it. Stilltim has made it clear he intends to continue creating his summary articles until he is finished, so while I still
169:. The two spinoffs are almost identical information with different formatting; the summary is indeed not a summary at all, being around the same size as the central article. The summary contains almost identical information to the main article, almost word for word, while the state delegations article is simply the list of representatives/senators in the main article organised "list of delegates from state X (rep and senator)" rather than "list of senators from state X" "list of representatives from state X". This is meaningless and useless cruft. There is not even any evidence that the
630:. As best I can tell, the only major changes were to revert the inclusion of an infobox and to re-link dates. I am not going to check all the articles, but I am having a lot of trouble believing the assertion that the summary articles were created over a dispute as to content rather than style. Most of his contributions to the main Congress articles have consisted of changing dablinks and other minor changes. The suggestion made, through Gordonrox24, that Stilltim was reverted multiple times before getting frustrated is also hard to swallow.
670:, he has a "vision" in mind of how these articles should look. I asked if there could be a compromise, but in his mind the only solution is to let him bee and once he's finished "picture may be clearer." This is the same response I've gotten from him on other issues, where he feels his version is the right version, and if only other editors would understand that his way is better, all will be right with the world. His goal isn't to distrupt WP, and his intentions are noble, but no one
487:: I have talked with the major contributor, and the only reason he has made these pages is because of a small amount of information. He had added a little bit of factual information to the original article, only for it to be removed numerous times. He just got fed up and made a new page with the information in the original article plus his new information. If we could find this information, add it to the article; then delete it would be great.--
650:
discussing a pattern of his adding material only to have it deleted. Rather, it shows that
Stilltim will revert anything that does not comport with the way he wants the articles to appear. The articles now up for deletion cannot be kept just because not everyone agrees with his vision of how the ordinal Congress articles should look. -
634:
justify and even harder to understand. It is inconceivable that an editor of such long standing made no attempt whatever to discuss the matter on the talk page of any of the articles involved or the editor who reverted him. The attempt to sneak in his preferred format one last time, in my eyes, detracts from his credibility.
221:. Can't fault the nom. I also think that the actions in creating all these articles, seemingly out of annoyance, need looking at. There was some very good advice on the talkpage of the creator, saying that if all of these are necessary, then start with one, get that into a decent state, then move onto others.
679:
With respect to the articles at hand, his response to me is tha that "individual accounts with a particular organization seems easier to find & use, rather than combine three or four presentations into one immense article." So, he wants one main article summarizing the
Congress, one that displays
665:
I agree with Rrius. While I have worked with
Stilltim on a number of issues (At-large members, general ticket, party identification, etc.) and find him to be a well researched editor focused on accuracy, I do think he has taken a special liking to the ordinal congress articles to the point of wanting
633:
He was reverted once on each of the articles where he deleted infoboxes and linked dates, but he did not follow up on any of those on any talk page. Moreover, his deletion and link edits were all marked as minor and contained the deceptive edit summary "cleanup". In the end, this behaviour is hard to
549:
Well if he can't locate where this information is then we're not going to keep 200 unneeded articles around until he works it out. He isn't interested in "wiki wars" good, but the correct response when faced with opposition is not to create your own set of pages where you can have eminent domain. I'm
519:
Let alone whether it is appropriate or not to include the material, this process should not be a way to circumvent consensus. If the user thinks it should be included then there are various ways for it to be discussed. Creating a load of additional articles which then get merged is not the way to do
361:
I'm all in favor of a mass nomination, but there is some red tape that you have to go through. I don't think we can vote to delete something that isn't on the list; nor do I think that you can list an article unless it's been tagged. This is the only one of those 200 that has a deletion tag. You
534:
I tottaly agree. This is not the way to go about getting information up, but the edtitor says he is not interested in "Wiki wars" he just wants to write about what he has learned as a historian. I have tried to get him to pinpoint which information was removed, but he has not been on since I last
649:
about it. In the explanation, Stilltim speaks of another editor "disrupting" his attempts to create consistent format over a period of years. The infoboxes, though, were only added fairly recently and had only been reverted in this recent round of edits. What that shows is that
Stilltim is not
621:
Having looked through
Stilltim's contribution history, the edit history of the first of these articles he created, and of the article it was based on, I just don't find the protestations of having had a substantive distinction credible. The first article created was
153:
I'm AfDing all articles in the format "Xth United States
Congress - summary" and "Xth United States Congress - state delegations". They are essentially direct copies of "Xth United States Congress" articles, and completely unneeded.
258:- Even the formatting is barely changed. I'm having a tough time finding substantive differences between the two. The whole point of the lead is to provide the summary, and I can't help and see how this needless forking
574:
283:- Can't see any point to them; as Ironholds points out, they're practically the same as the articles they were copied from. If the creator wants to continue with this, then suggest completing one to a fuller degree.
63:, as the consensus appears to apply to all articles of such a theme and not just the 46th Congress. This is license to delete these pages as CSD G6 "Housekeeping", assuming I do not get there first. —
181:
Note to closing admin, if this closes as delete - I've avoided adding them all here because there are about 200 of the damn things. The format is summarised above, and all the articles are found in
300:, and I would also add "Xth United States Congress - political parties" to that mix, as that is yet another regurgitation of material already found in the "Xth United States Congress" articles.
550:
going to inform the user who thinks he had this dispute with
Stiltim about this page - he might be able to remember what this "extra content" that he didn't include in the main article was.
113:
108:
117:
100:
597:
for reasons already stated. If the editor in question ever remembers the information he added and that he says was reverted at a regular article, he can discuss it there or at
235:
Indeed, which is why I left it for a while - I wanted to whether the articles would turn into something useful. Rather than actually following my advice the creator instead
701:
Indeed, this is a mass nomination - I just thought that sticking 200 articles in this was a bit OTT. Still, they all use the same format, so it shouldn't be a problem.
466:
the whole lot. The summary of each article should be the first section, not a separate article. Article spin-offs should be more detailed, not less detailed. Also,
376:
I consulted several; consensus was "how the heck are you going to list all of those" "They're all the same format, we'll work it like that and just list one" "okay".
262:
the readability of the articles. It just creates more pages to patrol, synchronize, and look up when finding information. This is exactly the kind of clutter that
146:
362:
might want to consult with an administrator for suggestions on shortcuts. I'm going to propose a shortcut below, don't care if I'm booed or hissed for this.
719:
598:
812:
Having tangled with
Stilltim over these articles before, I believe that the problem is that the user is overly attached to his contributions. See
737:
Thanks Rrius. If
Stilltim does not respond to my question on his talk page, I have no problem with a mass nomination/deletion of these articles.--
843:
831:
820:
807:
787:
769:
746:
731:
710:
696:
659:
610:
589:
559:
544:
529:
514:
496:
479:
450:
426:
412:
385:
371:
346:
332:
309:
292:
275:
248:
230:
213:
195:
81:
67:
417:
Doesn't fall under G3 - vandalism is doing something with the intention to harm the wiki. The user in question wasn't trying to do that.
403:"--th US Congress- summary" articles as G3, vandalism. Duplicating 200 or more articles that are 50+ KB is a massive waste of space.
236:
158:
23:
813:
104:
17:
757:
623:
162:
96:
88:
798:
Yeah. Stiltim is a smart historian, but if we can't get it to Knowledge correctly, I see no reason to keep these pages.--
323:
with some minor alterations. A mass nomination of similarly created articles would be appropriate in this instance.
627:
320:
166:
684:, it appears to me he is not interested in reaching concensus, only recreating what he feels was wrongfully changed.
467:
857:
501:
Could that user be a bit more specific as to what he's added? I assume it was removed from the other pages for a
43:
856:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
177:
that these articles were created as a place he could play with away from an editor he was in a dispute with.
337:
Thats what I've done - there are about 200 of the damn things, so I decided against listing them all here.
839:
803:
765:
742:
540:
492:
475:
271:
783:
706:
681:
555:
525:
510:
446:
422:
408:
381:
367:
342:
328:
244:
226:
209:
191:
688:
667:
581:
288:
301:
817:
441:
That's a matter of opinion. The user intended to to take up 10 megs for reasons all his own.
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
835:
799:
761:
738:
536:
488:
727:
655:
606:
471:
305:
267:
78:
64:
779:
702:
638:
551:
521:
506:
442:
418:
404:
377:
363:
338:
324:
240:
222:
205:
187:
685:
671:
646:
578:
284:
134:
774:
Excellent, the rest should be next. Stiltim reacted to this AfD by er.. creating
720:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Layout of the ordinal Congress articles
723:
651:
602:
505:; it may not be appropriate to include it (which seems fairly likely).
641:, who seemingly had nothing to do with the dispute. That explanation,
722:
that should have occurred before the summary articles were created. -
575:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/56th United States Congress - summary
24:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/56th United States Congress - summary
850:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
204:- Xth United States Congress - Political parties added in.
642:
182:
174:
141:
130:
126:
122:
718:For what it's worth, I've started a discussion at
637:Stilltim's only attempt at an explanation was to
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
860:). No further edits should be made to this page.
626:. It had its genesis in a very short dispute at
185:, so it shouldn't be too hard to bag them all.
159:46th United States Congress - state delegations
75:Xth United States Congress - political parties
237:created a new set of borderline useless pages
61:Xth United States Congress - state delegation
8:
778:pages in this format. I'm not optimistic.
573:per above and similar deletion debate at
666:only his version displayed. Based on my
599:Knowledge talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress
758:56th United States Congress - summary
624:50th United States Congress - summary
163:46th United States Congress - summary
97:46th United States Congress - summary
89:46th United States Congress - summary
7:
57:Xth United States Congress - summary
31:
814:Knowledge:No vested contributors
266:the usefulness of the project.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
319:As noted, this is a copy of
157:As an example, lets look at
55:all articles to the tune of
628:50th United States Congress
321:46th United States Congress
167:46th United States Congress
877:
668:recent discussion with him
173:considers them viable; he
853:Please do not modify it.
844:10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
821:16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
808:13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
788:04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
770:00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
82:11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
68:11:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
39:Please do not modify it.
747:13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
732:13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
711:13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
697:13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
660:13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
611:11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
590:20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
560:11:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
545:11:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
530:07:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
515:23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
497:20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
480:15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
451:12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
427:11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
413:16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
386:16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
372:16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
347:13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
333:13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
310:13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
293:11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
276:08:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
249:08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
231:08:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
214:13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
196:03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
468:WP:WHATAMESSTHISMAKES
175:as good as admitted
51:The result was
682:assume good faith
645:, has a whiff of
401:Speedy delete all
22:(Redirected from
868:
855:
694:
691:
587:
584:
571:Merge and Delete
535:talked to him.--
485:Merge and Delete
144:
138:
120:
41:
27:
876:
875:
871:
870:
869:
867:
866:
865:
864:
858:deletion review
851:
830:New discussion
692:
689:
619:
585:
582:
140:
111:
95:
92:
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
874:
872:
863:
862:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
793:
792:
791:
790:
760:was deleted.--
750:
749:
716:
715:
714:
713:
676:
675:
639:User:Ironholds
618:
615:
614:
613:
592:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
532:
482:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
432:
431:
430:
429:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
352:
351:
350:
349:
312:
295:
278:
253:
252:
251:
216:
151:
150:
91:
86:
85:
84:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
873:
861:
859:
854:
848:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
822:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
797:
796:
795:
794:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
751:
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
721:
712:
708:
704:
700:
699:
698:
695:
687:
683:
678:
677:
673:
669:
664:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
648:
644:
640:
635:
631:
629:
625:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
591:
588:
580:
576:
572:
569:
561:
557:
553:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
533:
531:
527:
523:
518:
517:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
462:
461:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
398:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
186:
184:
178:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
155:
148:
143:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
72:
71:
70:
69:
66:
62:
58:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
852:
849:
829:
775:
753:
717:
636:
632:
620:
594:
570:
502:
484:
463:
400:
315:
314:
297:
280:
263:
259:
255:
218:
201:
180:
179:
170:
156:
152:
74:
60:
56:
52:
50:
38:
35:
836:gordonrox24
800:gordonrox24
762:gordonrox24
739:gordonrox24
537:gordonrox24
489:gordonrox24
472:Drawn Some
298:Delete all
268:Shadowjams
780:Ironholds
703:Ironholds
674:articles.
552:Ironholds
522:Quantpole
507:Ironholds
443:Mandsford
419:Ironholds
405:Mandsford
378:Ironholds
364:Mandsford
339:Ironholds
325:Mandsford
241:Ironholds
223:Quantpole
206:Ironholds
202:Amendment
188:Ironholds
686:DCmacnut
579:DCmacnut
285:Skinny87
260:improves
147:View log
818:Markles
754:Comment
617:Comment
171:creator
114:protect
109:history
647:wp:own
595:Delete
503:reason
464:Delete
316:Delete
281:Delete
256:Delete
219:Delete
142:delete
118:delete
73:Also,
53:Delete
724:Rrius
693:: -->
652:Rrius
603:Rrius
586:: -->
302:SPNic
264:hurts
145:) – (
135:views
127:watch
123:links
79:harej
65:harej
16:<
840:talk
832:here
804:talk
784:talk
776:more
766:talk
743:talk
728:talk
707:talk
690:<
672:owns
656:talk
643:here
607:talk
583:<
556:talk
541:talk
526:talk
520:it.
511:talk
493:talk
476:talk
447:talk
423:talk
409:talk
382:talk
368:talk
343:talk
329:talk
306:talk
289:talk
272:talk
245:talk
227:talk
210:talk
192:talk
183:here
165:and
131:logs
105:talk
101:edit
59:and
834:.--
601:. -
77:. —
842:)
816:.—
806:)
786:)
768:)
756::
745:)
730:)
709:)
658:)
609:)
558:)
543:)
528:)
513:)
495:)
478:)
470:.
449:)
425:)
411:)
384:)
370:)
345:)
331:)
308:)
291:)
274:)
247:)
239:.
229:)
212:)
194:)
161:,
133:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
838:(
802:(
782:(
764:(
741:(
726:(
705:(
654:(
605:(
577:.
554:(
539:(
524:(
509:(
491:(
474:(
445:(
421:(
407:(
380:(
366:(
341:(
327:(
304:(
287:(
270:(
243:(
225:(
208:(
190:(
149:)
139:(
137:)
99:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.