User talk:MrFizyx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please leave new messages at the BOTTOM of this page.

• Archive1, March - July 2006
• Archive2, August - October 2006

[edit] Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

I liked your merger idea. There are quite a few of these articles. I contacted several editors who work a lot on UU articles a day or so ago to see if we could do something along the same lines (although I did not know about that list). Only one has responded so far. I nom'ed a few of (what I thought were) the cruftier articles for deletion, but there are a lot more that probably don't rate their own articles. I'm not sure how much coverage "Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" should have. JChap2007 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Not being a UU and not having a lot of interest in these articles, I wasn't really volunteering to do the leg work. I found the Affiliate article from a link in the UUETA article. You might just try merging some of these yourself and seeing if a redirect sticks or gets reverted. At this point its up to you though since the various AfDs are already in motion. Good luck, -MrFizyx 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if you don't want to do the legwork, I'd appreciate your voice at Talk:Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations for discussion. HellaNorCal 04:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm not sure merging to the list is a good idea. Wikipedia: Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria says that list items should have their own articles or that its reasonable to expect an article to be forthcoming in the future. As this topic is not covered in relable sources, we would not be able to write an article on it. JChap2007 14:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, those criteria seem pretty cyptic, too many X's. I think this depends on how things are done. You're right. We probably shouldn't compose a mere list of topics that don't deserve an article. It might, however, be possible to produce a good article on Unitarian Universalist Independent Affiliate organizations that mentions many of these organizations and is descriptive of the rich diversity that exists within the larger UU church. Most of these organizations have their own web sites that provide basic descriptions. While we would ideally like to rely on secondary sources to do our fact checking, in some cases the primary source may be the best source (we allow this sort of thing for living persons with their own web site for example). To mention them in the Affiliate Org. article, we would still need some source outside of the organization to at least acknowledge that they exits though. Well, these are my opinions at least. I'm curious what our friend(s) have to say about the sock puppetry business that you've observed. -MrFizyx 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This listing at uua.org, for example, could serve as one filter to weed out hoaxes and groups that the UU doesn't recognize. -MrFizyx 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe actually this page. -MrFizyx 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that I like that idea, but we would need to find reliable sources that describe the UUA as diverse. And of course there is still the link farm concern. Merging all that content just to see it get deleted would be a waste of effort. I don't think I'd nominate the article in AfD, but there are editors who would just for being a linkfarm. Working discussion of some of the organizations into Unitarian Universalism and Unitarian Universalist Association where relevant may be a better way to go. JChap2007 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, their response to my concerns about the sockpuppetry was underwhelming. [1] JChap2007 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiny new buttons