User talk:Pricejb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Contents 1 Responding to Conflict 2 The Ashes 3 B. Traven 4 John Merrill

[edit] Responding to Conflict

I replied to you e-mail at Talk:Responding to Conflict. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ashes

It's a pity that the template won't accept "holder", as I agree with you that it is a more apt term than "Champions". JH (talk page) 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B. Traven

Hi, John. I was looking at the above with a view to rating it for WP Biography, but I am much troubled by it, suffice to say I won't be touching it. There is still so much non-NPOV (the first paragraph calls him "enigmatic" - perhaps, from one editor's point of view, he is), definitely some original research (an editor should not raise questions within the article - "Concerns and other theories"→"Unanswered questions" - the reader is supposed to do that after having read the neutral, balanced facts laid out), and overall, the article expounds at such a length that the references contained within it at the moment are never going to be enough to verify everything being stated.

I'm afraid (for me) there is still so much to do with it. If I started editing the piece, I'd be ripping great chunks out and neutralising so much conjecture that I could see a possible edit war. Sorry to sound negative. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, John. Thanks for getting back to me. As a detached reader who had never heard of the subject before, and taking into consideration the nature of Wikipedia, I believe that you and your fellow editors are trying to do too much with what is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry in an online reference tool. We are not charged with producing a detailed academic paper on our subjects, merely to outline (even in a thousand words sometimes, I agree, but still an outline in relation to some of the more complex subjects) the nature of the subject and its inherent notability.

I would never question the notability of this subject, but your assertion that "we don't even know if B. Traven existed as a separate individual" is disconcerting, given that it is usual for individuals with nom de plumes to have their nom de plume covered in their own named article (with some exceptions such as Mark Twain, who was exclusively known as his alter). A more trivial example of this might be William Perry, American footballer, who became perhaps more famous through his nickname "The Refrigerator". However, his article exists as his given name, with a redirect to it from his nom de plume. Not an exact comparison, I agree, but I am trying to illustrate my take on how I believe subjects are supposed to be constructed, right from the off.

According to guidelines per WP:OR, the only way you can keep the "Questions" section (in its present format) is to make sure every single question you are putting is referenced from an outside source asking exactly the same question i.e. "Question" in Article.^[1]

Anything else is eventually going to draw serious accusations of OR from the wider community of editors, especially as you bring the article, over time, up through "B" and "A" towards "Featured" standard. My mention of original research is merely a worry regarding its future credibility.

Much the same applies, per WP:NPOV, if you want to keep over-positive ("enigmatic") references in there. If you can again slip in an inline citation at the end of the sentence where you use the 'compliment', showing that someone, of stature maybe, said this of him, then it protects the use of the POV as someone else's and not as an editor's own inserted views.

I fear that B. Traven would eventually end up as a much shorter piece, but I strongly believe that you do need to prune even more, though how you prioritise the really-really-much-more-important content will be a challenge for you and your fellows - I personally do not have the time or the familiarity with subject to attempt anything, though I would love to see it succeed as a top article in the future. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am not a contributing editor to B. Traven, I do not contribute to its consensus either. I have merely been trying to point out possible future problems, given the nature of guidelines currently in force. I have no more to say on this really, and wish you luck with it in the future. No reply needed. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Merrill

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article John Merrill, 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 John Merrill. slakr^\ talk / 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)