User talk:*jb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Fens

Hi. Just wondering if you were part-way through an edit on this page, as some of the formatting has gone a bit funny after your recent edit. -- EdJogg 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on it. I have corrected the formatting. However, that article needs substantial rewriting and editting, and some maps. It doesn't help that "The Fens" can refer to the whole of the Fens (from King's Lynn right around Lincolnshire), but the article flips between the Great Level (where they drained in the 17th century) and the Lincolnshire fens without differentiating. I don't have time to write it all right now, but I'm going to put in some headings and start reorganising things so that people can start filling in. I think I will follow Lindley's (author of *fenland Riots*) divisions for the different Levels, since that follows the drainage divisions. - *jb 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

From what you've said, it does look like a big job. As the article expands it will almost certainly subdivide naturally either by timeline or geography, although it may be difficult to see which way it's going at present (sorry, haven't actually read your revised page, just 'looked at' the changes!).

And my apologies if I have precipitated you into editing this before you were ready to (I know what that feels like!).

Cheers :o) -- EdJogg 16:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested articles

Hi. You probably mean well, but putting articles deleted through AfD into the lists of requested articles is not proper. Wikipedia works by consensus, and in cases such as the Actuarial Outpost there was a clear and affirmed consensus that it didn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. If you still think deleted articles are OK for the requested articles page, you should perhaps leave pointers to the AfD pages so people aren't misled. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia works by being dominated by people who have all the time in the world to troll around wikipedia deleting articles for no good reason. Those of us who have jobs and other things to do with our life are out-shouted by wikipedia fanatics who are destroying what could have been a good resource for information. Jim Wales deserves his own page, but a site that serves thousands of actuaries doesn't? Who the hell outside of Wikipedia has heard of Wales? And every goddam episode of Star trek has its page. Apparently "notability" means "geeks who obsess about Wikipedia and SF have heard of it". - *jb 21:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree in essence (though not in the specifics) with your opinion of Wikipedia, particularly the deletion process. You might recall that I argued for the Actuarial Outpost article to be kept in the AfD. However, once everyone but one or two contributors claims that something is out of Wikipedia's scope according to the inclusion policies and guidelines, it seems clear to me that the debate has to be lifted to the level of these policies and guidelines. I don't think sullenly inserting links to the deleted articles in the requests page is the right approach. Regarding notability-- it is my belief that, assuming we can hold our noses and pretend that such a concept as notability is both rational and tenable, that Wikipedia currently has a ridiculously high threshold of notability of academic topics and persons, and a ridiculously low threshold for artefacts of popular culture. If someone starts a campaign to correct this, I will give my hearty support. Real life prevents me from initiating this campaign, however. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)