User talk:DJhinckley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neil Cartwright

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Neil Cartwright, because another editor is suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would take the Wikicontrolfreaks to get round to it! I've removed proposed deletion template giving reasons on the Talk Page. DJhinckley (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posing your argument on this, but please don't refer to people as "Wikicontrolfreaks" and "Wikinazis". It's pathetic, quite simply and doesn't really help your cause. Anyway, I am going to AfD the article and see what the community thinks. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll open a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL to see what people think on his notability. The only chance it has really is being Hinckley's highest appearance holder, which I doubt would prevail. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Truth hurts. For some reason most of the editors who would be involved in a discussion at WP:FOOTBALL seem to think that the lower league have no place on Wiki. It is supposed to be a place to open up information and yet a select view are deciding to close and control information. I'd call that control freaks. You are seeking to use criteria to only allow what the higher few decide should be there. Is that really what wiki was created for. This isn't the first time you have taken it upon yourself to edit and remove other people hard work hiding behind Wiki guidlines, and with a certain appetite for Conference North teams too. What are you going to do when York City are finally relegated to the conference feeder leagues and your players are somewhat of a lesser notability? Wikicontrolling karma.DJhinckley (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You pose a very good argument there, but it is presented in a very disrespectful, putting-off manner. First of all, the fact that articles were "hard work" doesn't mean they have a right to stay on Wikipedia. I'm not hiding behined "Wiki" guidelines, I'm just choosing to abide them as it's necessary really. I've been in scraps before involving notability of players before, see here. If York City are relegated to Conference North, then, well, I'd just have to abide the guidelines. And "Wikicontrolling karma"? I would say instead of being controlling, to be honest, being fair. York City have to abide by these guidelines, and I think every other club should too. If anyone's being controlling, I think it's you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

'Guidlines' are not 'rules'. To hide behind them restricts natural progression. People are disrespectful because they are naturally upset when they see their hard work dismissed in one word 'notability'. Do you wonder why you have been involved in so many 'scraps' before? Perhaps you are abiding too closely to the guidelines and have to have a little more flexibilty and understanding of other people's work. Wiki is afterall an unending source and this strict adherance to already outdated guidlines seems obsessive on your part. Let go, and let it flow. DJhinckley (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My 'scraps' were due to when I was defending articles such as this. Anyway, I do agree that these guidelines (and it should be noted that what they are, not official policy) are followed too strongly. I generally agree with this guideline, mostly why I abide it. However, when a change is attempted to be made, it usually just swings the way of professional leagues. But, there is a discussion going on at WP:FOOTBALL here on expanding the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you agree that guidlines are followed too strongly, why are you then still following those guidlines yourself? People could argue 'where do you draw the line?' However if the resource of Wiki is unending, why drawe a line at all? I'll say it again WP:BIO is wrong and outdated already.DJhinckley (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main argument for drawing the line at pro clubs is that if it was dropped to Conf Nat (only for England, of course), which could be argued with being notable as it includes a good few pro clubs (which seems to be hard to prove), sources wouldn't be too hard to come by (BBC give reports for every match) and is a national division, it could then be dropped to Conf North & South, and then would continue dropping. The problem with the continual dropping? Well, it drops down to people who are amateurs and sources would really be impossible to find for. Anyway, if you want this to be changed, which you clearly do, I'm not sure what you should do really. Discuss it at WP:FOOTBALL or WP:BIO? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The disccussion going on at WP:FOOTBALL sugested criteria is pointless. Those involved do not have understanding or clearly really even care about the lower leagues. Their criteria seems to be based on how much revision of articles they will have to do. Plus there are only a fraction of the football article editors taking part, meaning again a select few will make the decisions on what is or isn't acceptable. restricting information based on what the work load will mean for them. Tell me that isn't elitist and controlling? DJhinckley (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

True, only a small amount of people are involved and I'm not sure exactly how this would be passed/enforced. Anyway, I'm confident in them giving their opinions on what is best and not what is best for what the work load will mean for them. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm confident in them giving their opinions on what is best and not what is best for what the work load will mean for them - of course their opions are going to be what is best for them. But what is best for a few select people is not what is best for Wiki as a whole. It is easy for their decisions to be enforced, they've already got robots unable to think for themselves religiously enforcing 'guidlines' at their own will... DJhinckley (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm confident in them giving their opinions on what is best. Not for themselves, but for Wikipedia. It's not terribly accurate having only a few people give consensus on decisions, but how else should it be done? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Cartwright

I've now put this up for deletion per discussions on-going at WP:FOOTBALL. Please feel free to contribute there but please note WP:AGF and don't accuse anyone of nazism, stick to the notability and biography guidelines when making your case. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, the Wiki hierarchy are going to do whatever they want to. The self elected will agree with each other that they have again saved Wiki from being populated by the lower classes. So there's no point in being involved with the discussion. There is no Spoon. DJhinckley (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Throwing your toys out of the pram is no real way to achieve your goal. If you firmly believe the policies need tweaking/overhauling then state your case. Don't just go off on a "everybody hates me" trip. I've read some of the arguments you've had in the past with other editors so I know you're capable of arguing your corner, but all I'm recommending is that you do it with good grace and good humour. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My statement is true though isn't it. As soon as the article was recomended for deletion, it was obviously always going to be. No amount of arguing or discussing is ever going to change that. It's not a case of everybody hates me more a case of those at the top hate those at the bottom. An analogy is like the admin and editors involed with the football section are like regulars in a pub. Pretty soon because they are in the pub so often they begin to think the pub is nothing without them. The same can be said of Wiki. The Editors don't like anything or anyone using Wiki if it doesn't fit in with their views on guidlines. An example of this can be seen when I put the Hinckley United main article page up for assessment. It was assessed, a rating given and nothing was changed by the assessor, who recommended a few expansions of sections. As soon as the Cartwright article was discussed for deleteion there was a host of editors that visited the main article and started changing stuff. There is no room for humour, sentiment or flexibility - all things vital to football fans. This is why Wiki is generally laughed at on the terraces and dismissed as a plaything for a select few. DJhinckley (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. My interpretation of what happened was the Cartwright AFD caused a few WP:FOOTBALL editors to show an interest in making the article encyclopaedic and improve its standard considerably. And you're right, an encyclopaedia really is no place for humour, sentiment or too much flexibility. I'm surprised to hear Wikipedia is discussed on the terraces, perhaps the game's are really boring? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

'Improve' is a very subjective word. I said 'laughed at' not 'discussed'. DJhinckley (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but encyclopaedia tends to imply encyclopaedic entries, not sentimental or humourous stuff doesn't it? Note that Wikipedia is, to quote, "...the free encyclopedia...". Club sites, blogs etc are the right place for all the humour and sentimentality you want, and good luck, but here we deal with facts! And you should be watching the football, not laughing at an online encyclopaedia when you're at the match! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kin hell 4 minutes? Have you seriously been watching all day waiting for a reply? Brilliant, that's cheered me up. Quote me: Pretty soon because they are in the pub so often they begin to think the pub is nothing without them. Quote you: Club sites, blogs etc are the right place for all the humour and sentimentality you want, and good luck, but here we deal with facts! - Your we highlights the us and them attitude of editors, thank you for proving my point. DJhinckley (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I watch all day for everything. That's because I'm part of the sinister brigade! No seriously, I placed a watch on your page so that if you replied to me I could respond - all about being polite don't you know! My "we" highlights the majority of editors who use the policies and guidelines. Thank you for you reading and understanding! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)