Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Asian tsunami : The earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

[edit]

Hi all, I have listened to BanyanTree's advised & visited Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines ... found out some interesting pointers to share with you.

Key policies

[edit]

1) Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically.

  • Was Curps Neutral when he deleted other points of view, even if they were differing. The term "Asian Tsunami" is an accept term or name for the event that happened on the 26th Dec 2004, covered by news media and the net. Blatantly calling 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is silly because there have been hundreds of earthquakes very week since 26th Dec 2004 but there is only one deadly tsunami that has been named by the media as the "Asian Tsunami".kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Point is, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was the name of the article that already existed. Renaming an article that lots of people are following is a big change. That article is in a state of flux at the moment, because the tsunami is a current event. After a few months, things will settle down. You'd be better off making whatever contributions you have to the existing article, and if, later, consensus develops that it is badly named it might be moved then. PaulHammond 12:53, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Moreover, the earthquake was in the COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA (if we want to be precise) not exactly in the Indian Ocean per say ... 2004 Indian Ocean is wrong big time !! There were more than a few hundreds earthquakes in the Indian Ocean in 2004 too !! kenkam 08:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The earthquake epicentre was about 150km west of far-northern Sumatra. In the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean does not begin at the west coast of Sumatra there, it begins at the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Sumatra is well and truly IN the Indian Ocean. Click here for a map of the Indian Ocean. As for how specific the title should be, I don't know. But it's already been to a vote once, and you were the only person in favour of your proposed title. Finally, it is not entirely relevant whether our title matches what the mainstream media has been calling it. We have redirects in place that also show up in search engine results with the same content, so people searching for any of the titles will be able to find the Wikipedia article. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Mark, thank you for your pointed comments. USGS FAQs calls the earthquake "Magnitude 9.0 OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA" and 68 other earthquakes were recorded since that day.kenkam 10:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If you by chance go to the western coast of Northern Sumatra for a holiday, and dip your toes in the water at the beach, you are dipping your toes in the Indian Ocean. Similarly, if you dip your toes in the water at the eastern coast of Northern Sumatra, you are dipping your toes in the Indian Ocean. The earthquake happened in the Indian Ocean. Can you clarify what you mean by "not exactly in the Indian Ocean per say"? - Mark 10:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Kenkam, if something is off the coast then it is in the ocean. And 150 kilometers off the coast of Sumatra is well into the Indian Ocean. Had the epicenter been on land, the effects would have been very different. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This is like claiming that the puddle south and west of Los Angeles isn't the Pacific Ocean. 23skidoo 15:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2) Don't infringe copyrights. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Submitting work which infringes copyrights threatens our objective to build a truly free encyclopedia that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal problems. See Wikipedia copyrights for more information.

  • No problems here. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further. See What Wikipedia is not for more info.

  • An 'encyclopedia' by Wiki definition is "containing articles on topics in many different fields ... specialise in a particular field", by branching Asian Tsunami to its categories covering specialised field & topics is my purpose & goal. In fact, I have come to a point to consider creating a "Asian Tsunami" Wiki project on my own ... care to contribute here ;-) kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4) Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement, Wikipedia:Civility, Dispute resolution.

  • I admit I see thing differently, maybe because I am orient-asian, from a land far away ... in this case at the epicentre of the disaster ... I need some respect & space which Curps has failed big time in rendering to me / others. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • You deserve space because you are at the epicentre of the disaster? I thought you lived in Singapore, which was virtually untouched by the disaster... - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Space as in respect & understanding ... yes ! Singapore is less than 1,000km from the epicentre, where Thailand, Bangkok is by distance further at 1,260km. Singapore was spared by God's grace because of the land mass of Sumatra & Peninsula Malaysia. We are nearer than any of the affected countries, furthest is East Africa, 5 times the distance from Singapore. Singapore is blasted with news everyday ... can't blame me for the Asian Tsunami Propaganda ... media says so !!... ;-) kenkam 10:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No one blames you for considering it. However, it is ignoring consensus and forking new articles which concerns me. As you rightfully point out, you live in a part of Asia that was not directly affected by the tsunamis, whereas other non-Asian countries which border on the Indian Ocean were affected. This is exactly why your proposal was not approved. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 10:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Behaviour guidelines

[edit]

5) No personal attacks (and move personal debates to email)

  • I am attacked by Curps ... if this was real-life I would have been murdered by him already !! ... ;-) kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't be silly, Kenkham! Making absurd comments like this doesn't help people to calm down and focus on the articles. PaulHammond 12:57, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • You called Curps's actions vandalism. That's one of the most common personal attacks around here. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

6) Please do not bite the newcomers

  • Not only did Curps bite me, he chew the bits he bit-off from me !! He bit me when I was new, before I had an account, and he is bitting me now too !! kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • "Don't bite the newcomers" works fine until the newcomers start ignoring policy and consensus, and start stuffing things up. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry ... not ill intent meant. kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

7) Three revert rule (Revert wars considered harmful)

  • While I had the courtesy to announce my idea to propose a change of name of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, he just went ahead & moved my articles without consultation & consensus more than afew times ... poor me. kenkam 08:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • First off, they are not *your* articles. Nobody owns these articles. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree.kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Secondly, the unanimous vote on Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake showed a clear consensus to leave the primary article on the disaster at that title. By creating this new article at your own chosen title, you are ignoring that consensus. - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not neessarily ... I branched other topic that had evloved from the event and do not plan to not talk about indian ocean earthquakes in 2004 which is what 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was about ... right ? kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Finally, with regards to the three-revert rule which you have listed this under, you have already twice reverted the addition of the VfD notice to the top of Asian tsunami : The earthquake. Adding this message is a matter of Wikipedia policy, which you now seem familiar with, so why did you revert Curps with a edit summary like "Deliberate vandalism by User : Curps"? - Mark 09:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Did I not leave it alone after that ? I make mistake too ...;-( kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • On the other hand Curps has deleted my comments too (he reinstated it) and moved articles without first seeking move consensus, when the intent of the new article are not about earthquakes in indian oceans but about the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami (true to it title) ... kenkam 10:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Kenkam, you keep saying "Curps has moved articles without consensus". Can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean that sections of articles have been moved around within one article, or that articles have been renamed without discussion? If the latter, were these substantial articles, or duplicates of larger articles that needed merging and redirecting? Did anyone else complain about these edits? You need to be exact (and preferable point to the appropriate page histories) when making claims like this. PaulHammond 13:03, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_tsunami_:_The_earthquake&oldid=24571953"