User talk:RGloucester/Archive 2

A tag has been placed on File:Police Service of Scotland logo.jpg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated. (See section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RGloucester — 📬 00:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edinburgh Trams you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings RGloucester, and thank you for your review. We see what you mean, and will rewrite the main article and biography accordingly. Before we begin the rewrite - beyond the removal of any "peacock" terms and neutrality issues - we would greatly appretiate if you could indicate if the following section is a big part of problem?:

• Works 2000-2013: These slightly altered texts come from the 3 printed books, plus 1 text sourced from artists website, and therefore the style is surely less encyclopedic. Are they acceptable in their current form or must they be stripped to the most simple descriptions?? (we feel the concepts of the artist are important as art is more than the sum of it's materials.)
• About your note on sources:

Having reviewed the "Identifying reliable sources" page, we are not exactly sure where we may improve. To us, they appear to be ranged and reliable. The artists official webpage is referenced often, yet the same information can also be found on gallery and other institutions websites or printed matter. ie: References to an interview that is published in books with ISBN numbers, are referenced to the more easily "checkable" interview on the artist's website.

I very much appreciate any initial suggestions you may have to help us. Thank you for your consideration! Hindsite (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia wants third-party sources, like a reputable newspaper. This is not my main concern, however. The tone of the proposed article feels like an advertisement. It needs to be written in a neutral point of view. I'm also concerned with your use of the pronoun "we". If there is a conflict of interest in your creation of this article, please stop and read that policy. Also, account sharing is not permitted. RGloucester — 📬 19:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - point well taken, this is very helpful. I apologize for the "we": I am the only one writing and using this account. I was clumsily referring to some technical folks who have helped me with proper english, some wiki code and format.Hindsite (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I believe i have fixed the issues and have resubmitted the article for review. Thanks again for your assistance.Hindsite (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll let a different reviewer pick it up, so you have multiple opinions. RGloucester — 📬 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have made further changes since resubmitting- do i have to resubmit again, or will the latest revised version always be reviewed? Thanks! Hindsite (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The latest revised reversion will always be reviewed, so don't worry about that. RGloucester — 📬 15:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Aynarasubab (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC) You recently rejected my contribution for BDNA Corporation. I modeled it after some existing pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryaka and I have only used external sources. Could yoyu pin point exactly what I need to change and why you think it appears "promotional"? Those are all facts from analysts like Gartner. I made it factual after being rejected for being promotional.

That's lovely, but it reads like an advert because it has a catalog of products that isn't needed on a Wikipedia, not to mention that the company isn't necessarily notable. RGloucester — 📬 22:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Aynarasubab (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Hi thanks for the response. Is your suggestion to remove the products section? I can do that if that is the offending piece. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge regardless of whether an entity is notable or not unless the policy is to only have information about popular entities. So as long as it is factual I would assume it is okay. Is having to be notable and popular a requirement? I see many not very notable pages. The product listing is again all just facts. I would assume those that are interested in knowing about the entity would certainly be interested in knowing what products the company has (vs what they claim they do). I went through the content and removed any promotional adjectives and made it completely factual (even numbers have not been rounded up or down). I have read through the policies and see many many pages that list products. Here are some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Coat_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetCache https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packeteer

• Please read WP:COMPANY. Only notable subjects should have articles here. Those articles don't seem right either, I just haven't seen them yet. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that the rules don't apply. RGloucester — 📬 21:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry- missed the bit on Talk pages- apologies! Can I put a note saying NOT to contact me? Atrivedi (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You can write that below it. But you can't remove it once it is there (that is only done in extreme circumstances). RGloucester — 📬 00:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article Edinburgh Trams you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edinburgh Trams for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox task force has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi RGloucester,

I saw your positing on the MOSNUM page - I am a little puzzled - did you mean to post it in the subsection "Tidying up", or was it's placing deliberate? Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind that…I was just confused and was replying to something old for a reason I can't imagine. I've now replied to the tidying up bit. RGloucester — ☎ 21:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

On 3 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edinburgh Trams, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Edinburgh Trams commence service in May 2014, it will have been fifty-eight years since the closure of Edinburgh's previous tramway? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edinburgh Trams. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to move my last reply to you at WT:MOSNUM. Something seems to be wrong with the way Wikipedia is handling edit conflicts at the moment. --Boson (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. As a voice of sanity at WT:MOSNUM I would hope you would feel able to make a constructive comment, though I can understand why you may wish to stay well away. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what to do in this situation. When I said "discuss at UKGEO", I didn't mean propose an RfC to institute metric units without evening discussing it first, and without even mentioning the merits of putting imperial first in a geographic context. It feels like gaming the system, for lack of a better way to put it. I'm sure you feel the same way. However, I am reluctant to get involved at ANI until I figure what exactly is going on with Martin and the rest. I'm probably a fool for trying to negotiate the tense line between the two "camps", but I feel like I have no other option given the circumstance. RGloucester — ☎ 15:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Would that be 172.8 Ms or a hundred dozen gross of seconds? NebY (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It must not be 172.8 Ms! It is correctly expressed, if one must use metric time multiples, 172.8 Ks. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I'm now so deeply embarrassed I can hardly bring myself to suggest a lower-case "k" for kilosecond. More seriously, may I say I really admire your calm persistence in helping the various contributors at MOSNUM find a resolution? I do hope you succeed. NebY (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I do appreciate it. This debate is so drawn-out that it really takes away from meaningful contributions to the encyclopedia, and that's why I'm trying to sort it. I was working on getting Edinburgh Trams to GA-status during a review, and, all-of-sudden, someone came out of the woodwork and started messing with units, and a talk-page argument of un-needed length broke out. This person did not assist in adding references, or otherwise improving the article, but merely went on and on about units. And it was detrimental to the process. So, I got dragged into MOSNUM. I don't want that happen again. RGloucester — ☎ 15:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds astonishingly familiar to me. I originally got dragged into this in trying to get Falkland Islands to GA status, all of sudden an editor who made no substantial contribution but had the helpful suggestion of putting metric units first. It paralysed the WP:FALKLAND group for 2 1/2 years, it effectively destroyed it. It is almost like there is a group of editors pouncing on GA projects to promote metric over imperial. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just looked at the discussion at Edinburgh Trams. My admiration has increased and I'm reminded it's high time I worked on a substantial bit of content; Orifice plate certainly needs it. NebY (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you were being combative, and I appreciate your efforts to help resolve the issue, but I definitely had the impression that I had somehow trodden on your toes. I should perhaps explain that my background includes (different) disciplines where the terms "man on the Clapham omnibus" and "register" (respectively) might be used in slightly unexpected ways. The term man on the Clapham omnibus (though it might not have been the best choice of words on my part) was not intended to be pejorative - indeed , according to Gray's Law Dictionary, "the Man on the Clapham Omnibus, to a lawyer, is synonymous with the pinnacle of reason in humanity: an ordinary London transit rider as representative of all rational thought and action." Anyway, my nerves are a little frayed by the whole discussion at the moment, so I hope I didn't over-react. —Boson (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. I read the phrase "the requirements of an encyclopedia are different from…the man on the Clapham omnibus" as "the encyclopedia is not for said man". I'm relatively sensitive to class issues, and I'm fairly certain that I'm the one who over-reacted. Never mind it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, this is indeed getting more and more absurd, , it seems he is determined to be banned for legal threats. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's gotten to the point where there is no way back for Martin, I'm fairly certain. I've tried my best, but he just doesn't listen to me, or anyone else for that matter. Having gone through articles he's edited, despite many valuable contributions, he has always had a battleground attitude. And it just doesn't work. I find it quite interesting that talk on MOSNUM has stopped since the start of Martin's absence. RGloucester — ☎ 20:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 20:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to congratulate you for the work you have done on your draft proposal on units. It is clear and elegantly worded. There is only one change I would suggest: instead of specifying English-speaking countries, the provision should apply to all other countries.

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Aasted. I do not think that Aasted fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because The statement "Aasted has developed a new method of feeding chocolate to the enrober, the machine that coats the candy in chocolate, that allows 50% energy savings" is a claim of significance. In addition, the article has multiple citations to independent reliable sources.I thin k this would be enough to establish notability at an AfD. The article is clearly out nof speedy deletion territory.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Aasted for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. <!— Template:Speedy-Warn --> DES ^(talk) 13:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If you say so, I shall. I still think the article is very questionable as a whole. RGloucester — ☎ 13:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be questionable, and you are free to take it to AfD if you think proper. But the presence of multiple source citations to at least apparently legit sources takes it out of the A7 zone in my view. DES ^(talk) 15:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but the referencing doesn't appear to be from 3rd party reliable sources. Nevertheless, I'm not interested in dealing with something of that order right now, and will leave it for someone else to find. Thanks for the notice. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RGloucester. You have new messages at Wee Curry Monster's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wee Curry Monster talk 20:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Happily so. RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hope you can support this request. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking this train wreck of my watch list. Whilst I can respect your decision if you no longer wish to be involved, may I appeal to you to try to stop the guy from self-destructing. I cannot for the life of me think what he hopes to achieve with this wikilawyering, all thats going to happen if this continues is the withdrawal of his talk page access. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've appealed and appealed, and he quite simply doesn't listen to me. Nor to anyone else, for that matter. I'm fairly certain that he has sealed his fate. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)