User talk:Leng T'che

IMPORTANT NOTE: If I post to your talk page, please continue the conversation there, not here. Leng T'che (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a "drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall."

For the record: I have been previously tagged "Troll?" by PK T(alk)

In response to your feedback[edit]

Most of these don't have references, or other people check it up on Google to see if its a factual country

Mjs1991 (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to believe you. But as the population of the US is 100 times that of other countries, naturally it will have 100 times the references of (for example) some obscure sports celebrity. In the mean time the entire national teams of small countries are feed into the AfD page shredder as "not notable". Very sad. And anyone attempting to defend these small country pages are stalked by the AfD team. Leng T'che (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leng T'che, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Leng T'che! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard_for_both_Malaysia_and_Sawarak_was_deleted archived...[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MBisanz/Archive_15#Hansard_for_both_Malaysia_and_Sawarak_was_deleted

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Leng T'che. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... :-) Leng T'che (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Again, greetings! I saw your creative suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion but am concerned about some of your other recent edits. First off, I do not know what prompted the series of edits similar to this, but please stop. If you feel there is an unresolved dispute between yourself and another editor, and it is not possible for you to disengage, there are methods of dispute resolution available to you. Simply spamming a complaint everywhere is not an acceptable alternative. Second, you have opened several discussions on the talk pages of cleanup tags, suggesting that their locations be changed. This is not the sort of decision that is going to be made at the individual template level - I suggest the talk page at WP:TC instead (you could use a request for comment to get more input if you desired). Realistically, I do not think this suggestion is likely to get wide support; consider just fixing the article problems the tags describe instead. I am available to assist you with any of this, if you would like. Thanks for your consideration! VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: "I am available to assist you with any of this,..."

Your offer has been noted, and appreciate.

re: "spamming a complaint everywhere"

I have tagged the chief offending templates. Nothing more. The reall spam here are the offending templates... What I have some is simply a 'splash in the pan'.

I was referring here to the "troll" commentaries. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Third-party & Template:Orphan & Template:Unreferenced

re: "Realistically, I do not think this suggestion is likely to get wide support"

Currently wikipedia is looking really ugly.

re: "consider just fixing"

I like to think I am addressing the root cause.

re: "unresolved dispute between yourself and another editor"

Actually no, I have none. The structure of the "process" simply causes this decay. (Interesting idea, maybe I can raise a WP:BATTLE with John Doe...

re: "First off, I do not know what prompted the series of edits similar to this..."

I have no specific beef with the Troll tagger. Neither am I perturbed of being called a troll. However it seems to be common practice on WP to call unfavourable contributors weird names. Probably a bad idea. But just as I am judged by my words, so too are others. But your approach with dialogue is actually appreciated.

My main assertion is that the current structure if wikipedia, esp Afd and Template:Third-party & Template:Orphan & Template:Unreferenced are defacing and damaging wikipedia. hence preserving a rather short sighted "Status Quo".

What I would like to see is some solid stats that to contradict my assertions. Maybe based on productivity, outcome and usefulness. Rather then quotes from some questionable "consensus" contrived deep with some "working group" bureaucracy. The more I dig around (thank god there is some transparency) the more I find a bureaucratic beast designed to canvass for and achieve the status quo.

Yeap. Solid stats would knock me down like a duck getting both barrels.

Some homework for you:

Leng T'che (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a pretty core policy, which is not meant to stifle dissent but to prevent anarchy. VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the Consensus is somewhat biased by funnelling the question to "the usual suspects."... "Indeed posting there could be akin to canvassing for the Status Quo." Leng T'che (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A meta description of the decision-making structure of Wikipedia can be found at m:Power structure. This is a very large community, and I disagree with your implication that a cabal (humorous or not) makes all the decisions. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice links BTW. Good food for thought.

I'd really like to see some stats on contributor attrition and article stagnation vs specific policies and decision strategies. I'm not sure where to start building this. Maybe correlating page/edit counts to the appearance of the various different WP:THREATs somehow. (In essence I am working on a "gut feeling", some real stats could sort this out either way)

Certainly there are too many great articles defaced with Template:Third-party & Template:Orphan & Template:Unreferenced, moving the "banner" to the bottom (like a category) seems to be a reasonable solution.

Leng T'che (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stopping you from collecting statistics, though I do not really understand what information you are hoping to collect. No way is an article "great" if it is unreferenced. Content needs to be verifiable to be encyclopedic. VQuakr (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not my job to give wikipedia a metric for measuring success. I'm not that hard core. I was inquiring to see if one existed. If one cannot define and measure success, how can one ever hope to achieve it? Leng T'che (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of statistics about Wikipedia exist. You would need to refine your question before it would be possible to determine if any of them would answer your inquiry. VQuakr (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those. Interesting indeed. Leng T'che (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]