Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 5

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ISSys → Interplanetary Transport Network (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I can find no external reference relating "ISSys" to "Interplanetary Transport Network"; all references I can found lead back to the ISSys redirect page on Wikipedia. Dan Griscom (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, "ISSys" is a rather obscure synonym that serves no purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charon123able (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget both to Cook (surname)#J. JohnCD (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• J. C. Cook → John Call Cook (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• J C Cook → John Call Cook (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

If anything, these should redirect to John C. Cook, but there are far too many persons named J. Cook that I'd be willing to bet that there's no other J. C. Cook among them. Therefore, delete as possibly misleading. Huon (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Cook (surname)#J per Thryduulf - much better than deletion. Stupid me! Huon (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to Cook (surname)#J. This is ambiguous, and so we should point the reader at the dab page. In addition to the two people above there is a film director (Pirates of the Pines) and an American football coach (Template:Central Arkansas Bears football coach navbox) who might be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to Cook (surname)#J - ambiguous and unduly promotional of one particular biography without being evidence based. --_nonsense ferret 01:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• REBUTTAL Huon went to the trouble of not just modifiying these pages which I had just created, but he went though ALL of my edits, apparenly because he has some kind of problem with me. Personal animosity that absolutely does not belong in Wikipedia, particularly in higher editors like Houn. I set these pages to point to John_Call_Cook as no one else is commonly known as J. C. Cook. John Call Cook wrote several scientific papers in the name J. C. Cook, which are still being cited by other scientists in the 2000's right up to 2012, as Cook's research was fundamental to the development and advancement of ground-penetrating radar. There is a John_Calhoun_Cook, but review of his history reveals that he was known as John C. Cook, not J. C. Cook. The page J._C._Cook and J_C_Cook should point to John_Call_Cook as readers searching for J. C. Cook will most likely be doing so in response to John_Call's scientific papers. Until it can be shown that there is ANY other J. C. Cook who would be commonly referenced today, J._C._Cook should redirect to John_Call_Cook. This modification was made by Huon out of personal animosity toward me, as were all the other changes he's made to pages I've edited, and this must not be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CACook7 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you want to do your best to promote this scientist, but personal attacks on other editors because they substantively disagree with changes you have tried to make isn't a good approach (see WP:AGF) and does nothing to establish the case you are trying to make. You suggest that there aren't any other J C Cooks who would be commonly cited today but in addition to examples mentioned above, a quick glance over Scopus shows that John Call Cook seems to have around 41 citations - there are several other examples of scientists such as Jon C Cook with more than 2000 citations, Jeremy C Cook with 607 citations, James Carter Cook with 495 citations, all of whom having a large number of papers published as 'J C Cook'. --_nonsense ferret 22:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nonsenseferret I am simply stating a fact. Mass reversals were done on all edits I had done that day, out of spite. I do not edit articles as a matter of course and this process is a difficult one as often actions are taken by some for personal reasons. Particularly objectional were the actions by Huon to reverse the disambigs I had made for John_C._Cook and John_C_Cook to point to John_Call_Cook and John_Calhoun_Cook. Prior, -all- of Calhoun's bio was in John_C._Cook, and John_Calhoun_Cook simply redirected to John_C._Cook. This defies common sense, as Calhoun is not the only John_C._Cook. Yet Huon reversed my disambig. Further, I created the page John_C_Cook as a disambig to the two John_C_Cooks, but Huon found that I had done this through researching my editing history and actually duplicated John_Calhoun_Cook's info HERE for a THIRD TIME. Please explain how can this be rationally characterized as other than animosity and a personal vendetta?

P.S: My intent is not to promote John_Call_Cook. My intent is to commemorate my father, and to give students and academics a way to locate his papers, citations, and biographical data. My family and friends have donated sums to the Wikimedia Foundation before, but it is beginning to look like this was misplaced when one individual's personal and inexplicable anger is allowed to override a rational internal referencing system. I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation of this issue.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CACook7 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was your incorrect actions in copying and pasting the content of the John C Cook page to another page that brought these edits to my attention. Even if some might have agreed with having a disambiguation page there, and the merits of this hadn't been discussed - to try to do it unilaterally in the copy paste manner you tried was not the right method and was pretty much a form of vandalism imho. Being annoyed at Huon in clearing that incorrect edit up is very misplaced. --_nonsense ferret 15:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know that I had asked in IRC to change John_C._Cook from a personal bio on John Calhoun to a disambig. I only got a No from Huon, who stepped on anyone else's chance to respond. So I researched the issue of disambig pages in Wikipedia's own pages, and it turns out that I am allowed to make changes exactly as I did. By all common sense, there should be at the very least a disambig page. Immediately after I had created the two disambig pages, Huon removed the disambig and actually put the full bio of John Calhoun Cook in all three locations! (John_C._Cook, John_C_Cook, John_Calhoun_Cook). This was shocking. He then went to the trouble of looking up my editing history of that day and reversed my creation of J. C. Cook and J C Cook.

So rather than the disambig pointing to the two John C. Cooks, he DUPLICATES this bio of a politician long passed in all three places!

Please explain how can this be characterized as anything other than a personal vendetta. Please explain how these foolish actions, in contravention of common sense and Wikipedia policy, was not out of (inexplicable) personal spite toward me.

When John_C._Cook actually holds one man's personal bio, to the exclusion of all other John C. Cooks, Wikipedia's internal referencing system is invalid. The majority of John_Call_Cook's scientific papers were written under the authorship of John C. Cook (the remainder as J. C. Cook), and his fundamental research is still being cited in other scientific papers today. Whereas John Calhoun Cook was an Iowa politician who passed away in 1920. Wikipedia loses credibility when the redirect system is intentionally corrupted by someone out of misplaced anger or inadequacy in his own life.

Several points, most of them irrelevant to these redirects. Firstly, I hope we can agree that whatever John C. Cook is or where it points to, John C Cook should point either thereto or to the same target. People looking for "John C Cook" won't expect something else than people looking for "John C. Cook". Thus redirecting the latter to the former seems appropriate (unless the former is itself turned into a redirect, in which case the latter should redirect to the same target). Secondly, I just had a look at Google News' archive for "John C. Cook", and while most hits were unrelated to either, Calhoun did appear twice, Call not even once. For someone who was active in the 1880s, that's a rather impressive showing, and I'm more and more convinced that Calhoun, district court judge and congressman, should be considered the primary topic, not Call, the scientist with very few citations. Thirdly, as I said at Talk:John C. Cook, for licensing reasons we don't do copy&paste moves, and page moves of this type should be discussed at the relevant talk page. Fourthly, I didn't "duplicate" the John C. Cook article; I turned other pages into redirects. Fifthly, J. C. Cook has incoming links that refer to neither Calhoun nor Call; thus it should not point to either. Huon (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is no sense in discussing this further with you Huon, as your focus is solely on defending your indefensible actions. I will now give the Wikimedia Foundation time to communicate their position on this before deciding how to handle my family's prior donations. I expect this will take about a week. CACook7 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Thryduulf or disambiguate (at JC Cook, others would redirect there) --

65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.