This is an archive of past discussions about User:AnonEMouse. 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.
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The IAFD measurements are wrong that's why I changed them and changed the reference. I'm a member of her official site(nikkinova.com) and she lists her measurements as 34D-24-35.
I agree with the boyfriend thing, we can remove it. But we need to change some of her stats so that they reflect what her official bio says and not IAFD.
Here is a clipping from her official bio:
Birthday- January 5th
Birthplace- Hampton,Va.
Sign- Capricorn
Height- 5' 7"
Weight- 112lbs
Hair- Auburn
Eyes- Brown
Measurements- 34D-24-35
Ethnic Origin- I am Cherokee Indian, Italian, English, Irish, German..and Scottish.
I'm just trying to make sure that her wiki page is as accurate as possible :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RageOfFury (talk • contribs)
You can send email to either myself or Joe (we're both Wikipedia:Administrators) through the links at the left; but usually Wiki posting is considered better, as it leaves a record of the discussion that others can read too. When you write that you are a member of the site, does that mean you are working for the site, or you paid for membership? --AnonEMouse(squeak)14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a long time paying member of her official website. I modified her profile last night in accordance with Joe Beaudoin Jr.. Valrith did change her profile back for some odd reason. I reverted back to the profile I made last night which reflects perfectly Nikki Nova. I don't know why some members of the wiki community are having a hissy fit over the changes I've made to Nikki's profile. The changes I've made are based on hard facts from her official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RageOfFury (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I can see why Valrith would revert those changes.
As your reference, you added a link to http://nikkinova.com. Well, that page is the front page of her official site, but doesn't back the information you added. You can't just link to the front page and expect people to search the whole site for your facts. You want to link to the actual page that says the facts you are trying to reference, and, as Joe also wrote, sending him a PDF or something is probably a good idea too.
You also added "Nikki Nova is truly one of the most beautiful and sexy women on this planet. Her astonishing body..." No offense, but that is puffery. We need to write from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If she won a beauty contest, we can write that, but we can't just say she is beautiful, since that means different things to different people.
1- Her official bio and stats are only accessible to paying members. I did send Joe the PDF and he okayed my to change her stats. EDIT: I found a free accessing bio that has the same stats as her site. I have changed the references.
2- I agree with removing this part. I will be done.
3- Yeah I was comparing the two and thought that the "rocks" one was the most up to date so I went with that one. But if other sites are saying that it's purely the nikkinova one then ok I will change it back.RageOfFury02:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Good question.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
How precisely do you know that they are notable if you can't read them, and don't know what they are about? Anyway, take to DRV if you want, there's nothing stopping you. - Ta bu shi da yu15:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, from external evidence (it's a large site, somewhat ad-laden, but clearly not a porn site, apparently focused on economic issues in general) it seemed like it could be a reliable source, but I will defer either way to someone who does read Italian or otherwise claims they know better. That's what I wrote in the AFD, and that's why I'm not taking it to DRV, or even objecting to the close as such. I was commenting on Epbr123's comment, and wondering if you do claim you (yu) do know better, mainly out of curiousity, and for the next time Economia Aziende writes an article on something. So, do you read Italian or otherwise have any reason to know whether or not they're just a random site, or something more notable or reliable? --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think the twins' agency or publicist has been poking into the article...will take a deeper look at it later if I get some time and a good connection. Videmus OmniaTalk20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
about plastic surgery
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You are right AnonEMouse, I didn't know about these things and I will be taking it in count for the future, now I think I shouldn't add anything else from there even if they accepted to go for plastic surgery, I just thought that it was a good site, sorry...
(I am new on this, so I am not sure how to reply to you)
Either here or on your talk page is fine; I read it there too. No problem, sometimes our policies can be complicated, no one can be expected to know everything at once. Good luck! :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello AnonEMouse! I am Masterpiece2000. I joined Wikipedia on 01/10/2007. I am very new. Can you tell me something about Wikipedia? I have made some contributions. But, I still don't understand many rules. You can reply on my talk page. Masterpiece200002:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome messages
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I saw your note on a new user's page. Geez, I've been using {{welcome123}} for a few months now ... I hope I haven't scared too many contributors away! Regards, Newyorkbrad02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
See just above. I'm not sure why they chose me, I don't think I'm an active sociology editor. Maybe because my username starts with A? About that template - well - maybe it's just the timid mouse point of view, but, yes, I have to admit, the huge box with about 50 or so links did look just a bit imposing to me, yes. I've been an admin for about a year, and I don't think I've read all those pages! :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw your user page and I thought that you are a friendly person. Anyway, if I face any problem, I will contact you. Cheers. Masterpiece200003:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking good for the image - the owner of http://flickr.com/photos/telstar/47854252/ says he is a registered Wikipedian himself and will be glad to add the picture to the article himself later today. Maybe even two pictures if we're lucky. That's the first time that happened to me, that I met someone who says "sure, but why don't I do it myself". :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
As for the Good article reassessment, that seems to be bobbing and weaving, I'm not sure what the focus of the objection is. At first it seems like it was that there is no such thing as a Hispanic which is ridiculous. Then it seems like it was that the intersection of Hispanic and Admiral isn't notable, which is only marginally less silly. Then it seems the issue was with sourcing, which I could do something about (I added a specific link to the New York Times 1911 article) but then I read it again, and it seems the issue was that this is a list and not an article, and I don't know much about lists. I think the whole reassessment should be restarted until the objectors become clear on their complaints. I'll go say that there. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your advice, but I am something of a completist and inclusionist! I did find a "dead porn stars" website, but she's not listed there; however, with so many aliases (none of which may be remotely correct), it's like swimming through treacle. As to current status, Google calls. "It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it". --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your expert opinion is needed
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry to bother you, but an expert, and neutral, opinion is needed in the in the Alice Bailey article [1], for the disagreement under "Revisiting Policies" heading (near the bottom of the talk page). It is my view that Jamesd1 has in the article made sweeping statements about the many Bailey quotes, and those sweeping statements are his own reading of what he thinks they mean. To me that amounts to original research and non-neutral point of view. (If it is not, why did I get such a hard time over the writing of criticism section, in which my own reading of Bailey's comments were rejected on those same grounds?) Thanks. Kwork14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just thinking this very morning - wow, nothing heard from Alice Bailey in quite some time, maybe they've reached some kind of stability? Ah, well. Will look... --AnonEMouse(squeak)14:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Moving target/sources
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, AnonEMouse. Mainichi Shimbun, a great source for many articles I've worked on, to which I've linked on dozens of articles, has recently changed their site format. Now none of those old links work... Needless to say, this royally screws up a lot of article sourcing. But wait, it gets better! I can't locate the old articles either through searching archives at the site, or through Google searches (which locate the old link, but turn up the new front page). The Google caches are still there, for now, and I do have copies of the articles all saved... Internet Archive is turning up some of the articles... My question: In reparing this royal screw-up, is there an easier alternative to searching the Internet Archive, hoping it's there, and re-doing all the links? (Please, please, please say yes!) And if not, would it be sensible to make a practise of automatically including a link to an archived copy of every link to prepare against such site "improvements" in the future? Dekkappai20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally have used the Internet Archive for such things. However Web archiving lists several others. One I've always wanted to try "when I get a round to it" has been WebCite, which apparently will archive any link for you when you ask them to. Or at least will for academic sources; and I think Wikipedia can try to be called that. :-). Unfortunately it requires being proactive, and asking them to archive the page before it vanishes, not after. Something about barn doors and horses... :-( If you try any of those, please tell me how they have worked for you. The good news is that the Mainichi Shimbun is a print newspaper, so if you cited the date the article appeared in print, the reference is still valid even if you can't find it on the Web. But of course it is much more convenient for everyone if you do have a link. --AnonEMouse(squeak)20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Anon. That'll help. Internet Archive is so slow to search/open for some reason, and it's not showing all the articles... Live and learn, I guess. Dekkappai20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Will try, let me think about how best to phrase it. I think Awadewit likes me, but in a way that makes this more difficult. If it was someone else, I could just say, look, WP:ENGVAR is a commonly accepted guideline, and it clearly doesn't make the article any worse, so while we can't make you do it, at least don't stop someone else from doing it, and they'd look at the little mop on my user page and probably behave. Maybe that will be the way to go, but I hope I can write it at least a little more nicely. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Angel Guts
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Who gave Angel Guts a "Top" rating in the porn project? Probably some kook, drunk... or both, who wasn't paying attention when he was pasting onto the article's talk page ;) ... In any case, "Mid" sounds right. Thanks for fixing that oversight. Dekkappai16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Something to keep an eye on
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Looks like Dave Naz has abandoned his old obvious username (User:Davenaz) and is now editing as Fashioncheque (talk·contribs). Edits are pretty much limited to his article and that of his girlfriend (Ashley Blue). Don't think it's gotten to the point of needing to address COI editing (though I will leave a message on his talk page) but definitely warrants monitoring. Videmus OmniaTalk16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, I don't think it's him. It may actually be Ms. Blue/Small, or another fan or close friend, but I think Naz himself would be able to do a better job of finding sources on himself. I found some far better sources with a brief search (have I plugged User:AnonEMouse/MouSearch sufficient1y? :-) ) that our article just isn't using, and probably should.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, mus musculus non-nominatus, I hate to ask but you seem to be one of the few editors/admins I know who is non-judgmental when it comes to porn pages; could you take a look at the above if you have time and let me have your opinion? Myself and User:Nazz are the only two editors of Tove Jensen at present, and I'm only involved because this guy seems to have an axe to grind and the page is on my watch list. The specific issue at present is the birthdate and I won't say any more until you've had a look at it. Thanks --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh my. I wish I could tell you better news, but the birthdate is the least of your worries. The article is somewhat controversial, about a probably living person, and basically unsourced. Porn stars are controversial by their nature, but due to her specialty, this one seems to be more controversial than some. There is a strong argument in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that all unsourced derogatory or controversial information about living persons should be deleted outright; this whole article isn't obviously at that level, but it isn't that far from it. I looked a while on the web, and I couldn't find any Wikipedia:reliable sources writing about her, or even backing Alkivar's claim from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tove Jensen, which seems to be why it wasn't deleted then. There are lots of image galleries, but that doesn't mean much; the ones who want to publish actual information about here refer ... to our article! I've looked at the PDFs referenced from the article talk page, and they aren't conclusive proof of anything, and even if they were, they would probably be primary sources. :-( The article isn't slanderous, but I strongly doubt it could stand up to another deletion challenge, which makes the question of age rather moot. --AnonEMouse(squeak)20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I re-read the original AfD & take on board Alkivar's claim but then nothing the FBI say would surprise me, but that should be irrelevant in any case. The distinction I see here is that whereas most American actors have well-publicised BIO details, European ones generally do not and I suppose someone has tried to make bricks without straw here. I have no particular interest in seeing the article survive if it's that bad anyway, so I'll leave it to its own devices and let someone AfD it if they want. It's not as if the article links anywhere useful in any case. Thanks again. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Goodbye, and Thanks
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. Parsifal and Kwork tend to be anti-Bailey editors and their personal bias conditions their edits. They make nice little format fixes, but where anything significant is concerned, their bias is likely to control. I have fought their selective-misquotations and distortions and lack of perspective for a long time, and struggled in the face of it to create a biography that is accurate and that contains a just amount of reasonable criticism. It is no use, unless others with knowledge, interest, and authority show up to change the situation.
I am done with editing this article. Without administrative intervention or other knowledgeable editors with a scholarily interest in the subject, it is like writing in Beach sand and there is insufficient support to warrant continued painstaking efforts. There have been a few people who have given mostly moral support and discussion contributions, and for that thanks. But there is no real community of active editors willing to join me in shaping the article.
My friends in this karma, those identified with the Jewish issues, will now control a subject they are averse to and which they have limited knowledge of. The pro-Jewish editors, those I've called anti-anti-Jewish folks, have won and I predict the result will be apparent in the near future. What progress I have contributed will be dismantled. The order and relative sanity I've sought to foster will be undermined. Sections will be cut away until the article bears little resemblance to AAB's life and thought or the contrasting thoughts of a community of reasonable critics. How could it be otherwise when people work on a subject they do not know and are averse to identifying with, even on a temporary scholarily basis.
Yes, the situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. It is absurd, and no amount of Wiki rule quoting will avail. For any complex and controversial subject, and in the absence of knowledgeable and clear-headed editors, the Wikipedia process breaks down.
I will not be coming back to the article unless word reaches me by email that the situation has changed. It will likely be some time before I sign on to Wiki again and I will not be checking for response to this, my last post--there is a direct non-Wikipedia email link on my personal page. If anyone should need to contact me, use that, because after I click "Save" on this message, I'm out of here and will not look back. James02:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
p.s. "Omit the negative propositions. Don't waste yourself in rejection, nor bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good. (R. W. Emerson)
Sorry it wasn't fun. Thank you for your contributions, I think the good ones will stay longer than you think. Nice quote there at the end, a very good idea. --AnonEMouse(squeak)12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse, James was the Alice Bailey expert on site. I learned that he has written three or four books based on Alice Bailey's work. He also wrote a computer program:
"Self Search was the subject of a doctoral dissertation study: Psychological Assessment Of Personality Types Proposed in The Theories of Alice Bailey And Roberto Assagioli, A Dissertation by Paul F. Dorin, , 1988. This dissertation includes a reliability and validity study showing significant correlations between the types as measured by Self Search and other tests including: The Study of Values, The Sixteen Personality Factor Question"
When James was the main editor you classified this article as a Class B. Please checkout what Parsifal, the new editor, placed over your Class B rating --that is after she reverted and revised the class B article. Thanks. Sparklecplenty05:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Alice Bailey still seems to be consistently B-Class, I don't see any change. I also took a quick glance at Parsifal's edits there, and couldn't see what you are referring to, though, of course, there were many, so I probably missed it. A diff, perhaps? --AnonEMouse(squeak)12:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... Jamesd1 staged a walkout. And he is blaming it on the Jews! As he wrote above: "those identified with the Jewish issues, will now control a subject..." But if he had not been so determined to have control of the article's content in his own hands only, and if he had been willing to work with a spirit of compromise, then there would have been little to argue about. In any case he did not have to leave, but chose to leave; making a last minute big drama out of it in the process (which is itself contrary behavior to what Bailey taught her students.). Kwork11:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)
We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
New irc channel
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot15:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
I'd appreciate your input on an userbox issue
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi AnonEMouse,
I'd like to ask for your input on a userbox issue I've encountered, regarding the speedy deletion of several userfied userboxes that expressed negative stance toward a thing or concept (e.g. hate/despise/dislike/loathe/choosing one over something else). I've held a discussion with the deleting admin in question, and we have hit a dead point in the discussion. As I know I'm biased in this issue I'd appreciate it if you could spare a neutral look at the dispute. (Note: I've randomly pulled your name - along with 3 others - out of my hat. If I bothered you I deeply apologize - feel free to ignore & delete this comment in that case) Best wishes! CharonX/talk00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments at the RfA RfC
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I just wanted to clear something up re Ryulong and User:Walter Humala. The trouble with block logs is that they give the blocking admin's opinion, not the whole story. The alleged "hate joke", IIRC, was when he replaced the <!--End of MfD message... with <!--End of "nazi" message... on an MfD notice on his own userpage, after Ryulong had nominated almost all of his userpages for deletion (again, for no apparent reason). If blocking users for making one edit to their own userpage is considered proper admin conduct, then evidently I'm far too lenient to be an admin. :-) To be fair, though, this was the only time I'd encountered Ryulong, so I won't assume this to be a typical example of his use of the tools. But his treatment of Walter Humala was overly trigger-happy, IMO - while I understand he was acting in complete good faith, admins have an important responsibility to be kind to "borderline" users, and to guide them in the direction of productive editing rather than driving them away. WaltonOne19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
{butting in) I made a short comment at the RfC, but Ryulong is probably one of the worst possible examples you can point to. I've never seen a more trigger-happy admin (look at my block log). Videmus OmniaTalk20:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you have clashed with him, haven't you? VO's block log would have been a better argument against Ryulong, yes: two consecutive blocks, each ending in an apology for mistaken identity or mistaken time stamps, is not good. But I stand by the comment about Ryu's block of Walter Humala being fully justified, and possibly mild. When someone nominates Miscellany for Deletion itself for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion, they are being disruptive, at best out of an effort to make a joke; and when this comes after a history of 8 other blocks, by different admins, several for disruption, I am not going to insist any admins assume good faith. --AnonEMouse(squeak)14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Holly Madison
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Interestingly, the reason why I changed it is the reason why you don't want it changed. The newer version is actually more accurate in terms of her eye color and is corrected for the red eye, but not neccesarily for the glare. The previous version did not do a good job in red eye correction because it changed her color, but I see your point. I'll revert. ----Ðysepsion †Speak your mind16:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Image
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, AnonEMouse. Here's a philosophical conundrum that's been working at me for quite some time: What is porn? Several of the movies/actresses/directors I've classified as porn (i.e., "Roman porn", "Pink", "Pinky") almost certainly not live up to most Americans' conception of "porn" as it exists today... I'm dubious about the Category: Japanese porn stars at Reiko Ike, but the one that I'm wondering about right now is School of the Holy Beast. It's Pinky. It's Nunsploitation. But porn? I prefer the term "Erotic cinema" since, certainly, these films all focus on eroticism... But are they porn?... Though I suppose they do meet the requirements for "softcore". (This also may touch on the debate going on here about big bust model/performers between the West & Japan as well. Different countries/cultures, different standards/traditions...) Dekkappai02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, if only we had a good encyclopedia at hand ... wait ... :-) Pornography quoth "the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief." That sounds like a pretty good definition, and fairly consistent with the American Heritage Dictionary's "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal".[2] Your article says "Pinky violence", which implies nuns getting beaten up, which, that doesn't seem like "human body or sexual activity", so wouldn't fit. The cover image in the infobox, on the other hand, also implies a certain amount of gratutious nudity, so if then I imagine it would. --AnonEMouse(squeak)12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, with "goal of sexual arousal," intent becomes the question... And yes, I'd say the nude cat-fights in the Pinky violence, and the nude beatings, etc. in the Nunsploitation flicks do have that intent. So you've set my mind at rest there at least. Thanks, Anon... On the other hand, many of the clearly, explicitly and self-proclaimed pornography, like Angel Guts and the films of Koji Wakamatsu and Hisayasu Sato, seem to me to have more of an intension to shock and horrify than to arouse... But I suppose I'm splitting hairs here. Ahem... Back to work... Dekkappai15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, everyone's favorite Keeani Lei image is up for deletion at Commons. I'm neutral about it - don't think I'm even going to comment in the deletion discussion. Videmus OmniaTalk20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Zounds! One may debate the intent behind the nude nun-flagellation, but there's no doubt about the intent of that image of Ms. Lei, VO. Here's hoping the image continues to grace a Wiki-page. Cheers! Dekkappai20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:An Honourable Deception.jpg)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:An Honourable Deception.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. βcommand22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I s there such a thing as permanent semi protection ? I have had that page semi protected in the recent past but it is still being vandalized in a very childish manner. It seems to be coming from institution's with more than one IP address. Is there a permanent solution to this problem ?
Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight06:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So far this months, there has been repeated vandalism from 80.2.33.248, and a little from 4.153.195.115, 81.102.136.245 75.91.185.20, 4.153.194.62; However there have also been good, if minor, edits from IPs: [3][4][5] Let's compromise, semi-protect it for a week, and see what happens. --AnonEMouse
Absolutely. I can live with whatever happens but I am quite pleased to learn that permanent and or extended protection is possible. I am an identical twin. I appreciate your help. I will trust your judgement. Thank you very much. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight14:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Nicky Cruz image
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I finally saw your defense of my actions. Locating this was a very difficult thing to do as, the webpage on Wikipedia was archived. The search function didn't work for me so I had to go archive-to-archive. I finally found your comment at:
So, thank you. I did leave my last comment on that page a little while ago to make clearer some of the things I was discussing with another user. You can leave a message on my discussion page if you'd like.--MurderWatcher120:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
never mind
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry to hurt her fan. I used "such actresses", because i can give at least one more example of such claim. We cant take what she writes, such things they claim for advance of their ethics/philosophy, since many people will read what she says. It is hardly beleivable, she hadn't even lodged a police complaint. I may be little harsh in edit summary, but my edit to article text is quite fine. Lara_bran14:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Rakhi Sawant claims "she had to succumb for paid sex(when age 13), because her mom was in hospital and she was penniless", you take that? I dont take such things, im not sure if you understood my point of how it promotes their ethics/philosophy. "Writes" is fine, but i will add another "that", not today, that sentence has too many commas. Nice day. Lara_bran15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It hovers somewhere around there consistently. It was higher when I was expanding it to FA level, around the end of last year, then fell as it stabilized. --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:David_Heymann_12000_Award.jpg listed for deletion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi AnonEMouse, I don't believe we've ever interacted before. I would like a second opinion relating to a discussion I'm having over at Commons. I found the suggestion that this image could be considered child porn ridiculous. However, it's started me wondering if there are any policies, practices or precedents relating to unclothed children, and if I need to go back to the discussion with my tail between my legs. It's never popped up on my radar screen, but you edit in areas where it may be more likely to, which is why I'm asking you. Thanks, BanyanTree11:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if any unclothed children pop up in "my" areas, then they probably would be... :-) But I see your point. However, at that discussion, it doesn't look like anyone agrees with D-Kuru that the image is pornographic, they seem to be agreeing with you that the main problem is questionable copyright. If the pornography problem comes up, say, and I'll see if I can be of any help, though my editing background here is equally likely to be a hindrance. --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Restoring a deleted page
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, AnonEMouse,
I have a request for help. The page on Carroll Runyon, an anthropologist, novelist, neopagan and occult author, was deleted last October. I never saw the proposal for deletion or i would have voted to keep, and it looks like it was deleted by a couple of people voting, at least one of whom simply made fun of the man because of his religious inclinations, saying he had been in "hokey secret societies" -- probably because he's a Freemason).
Carroll Runyon used to edit a magazine called "The Seventh Ray" which took its name from Alice Bailey's teachings. I found out that the Runyon page was deleted when i went to link to it from the Alice Bailey page, under the new Influences section, where i am citing her incluence on the New Age and neopagan religions.
I found that Runyon was also mentioned on the wiki page about the Goetic demon Vassago -- because Runyon and his associates made a video in which they recreeated a medieval invocation of the famous "prophetic" demon at a ceremony for the new millennium. It's a well known video in the modern occult world and rather unsettling, because the man chanelling the voice of Vassago (not Runyon) predicted horrific death and war from 2001 through 2010 -- which has certainly come to pass so far.
It seems wrong to me to have had the Runyon page deleted. I would like to see it reinstated, and, if needs be, i will work to improve it. Runyon is certainly more deserving of a page at Wikipedia than many others, and he is far from trivial in the culture of ceremonial magic, due to his Jungian interpretaions of magical experiences.
So, pretty please, dear Mousey Admin, can you bring it back so i can link to it? If you think it needs work, tell me what else should be done. I can certainly create a bibliography by mining the amazon listings, if it doesn;t have one.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carroll Runyon had extremely low participation, even after being restarted. If it had higher participation, I'd be advising going to Wikipedia:Deletion review, that's what it's for ... but with only 3 people in the discussion, and the most vocal one of them being a "weak" voice, I suggest just putting together some evidence of notability and asking the closing admin, Yomangani, directly, if he'll mind if I recreate it for you to improve. The worst he will do is say to take it to Deletion review, where you will need to present the evidence anyway.
I did a couple of Google searches (for "Carroll Runyon" and "Poke Runyon") for evidence, let me jot it down here.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Anon. I've just started stubs on three Masaru KonumaRoman Pornos which are going to be released early next month by Kino International (Cloistered Nun: Runa’s Confession, Tattooed Flower Vase, Erotic Diary of an Office Lady). I'm a bit puzzled on how to rate them. I've given Tattooed Flower Vase a "Mid", since it's got both a major star and a major director. The other two are known... I had heard of them before the news of this DVD release... but not exactly top-drawer Roman Pornos. Before the DVD release, I'd have probably rated them "Low", but I have a hard time giving a 30-year-old Japanese porn film that is being released on DVD in the US by a fairly major, and high-class company anything less than "Mid"... or is this just my bias towards the subject talking? Dekkappai20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, two relatively genre independent ways to look at it:
Should you compare all Japanese porn articles in the encyclopedia by "importance", would these go into the top 1% (top), top 10% (high), top 50% (mid), or bottom 50% (low)? Note this only includes those that would survive Wikipedia:Notability.
Is the subject something that
everyone who follows porn, and many, many people who don't follow porn at all know about? In other words regular mention in mainstream media? (top)
everyone who follows porn knows about? Regular mention in porn media, occasional mention in mainstream media? (high)
most people who follow porn know about? Regular mention in porn media, no or trivial mention in mainstream media? (mid)
some people who don't follow porn know about? Occasional mention in porn media, occasional mention in mainstream media? (mid)
some people who follow porn know about? Occasional mention in porn media, no or trivial mention in mainstream media? (low)
Is the release getting attention in porn media? More than press releases, multiple actual articles and/or reviews, by more than one-person fan sites? If so, that would be Mid, attention over 30 years is fairly regular. If it actually gets multiple non-trivial articles in mainstream media, that could be High. If no one is writing actual articles about it in either mainstream or porn sources, other than just listing it among the hundreds of others they have available for purchase, that would be Low. (Assuming it got some articles, for example some paragraphs in your books, at the time of original release. If not even that, it could be deleted for lack of notability.) --AnonEMouse(squeak)20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, Anon. The articles/reviews are pretty scarce at the moment, but then the things haven't even been released yet. I'm pretty sure write-ups will be forthcoming... And it's not like these are run-of-the-mill porn videos. They're high-class productions with paragraphs in books on the subject, even if they may not be the best-known of the genre, so I'll give them both "Mids". Dekkappai21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Alice Bailey article
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi AnonEmouse,
Now that I understand a little more about how the Wikipedia system works, I am appreciative of your strong adherence to Wikipedia rules. Those that substantial knowledge of the writing of Alice Bailey have left. The Alice Bailey article is currently being shaped by those with a "personal view". The editors are biased, have little or no knowledge of the subject, and are not following Wikipedia rules of finding the the best verifiable sources, but are selecting sources that support what they want to say. And will insult and delete the work of anyone who tries to give a more balanced and scholarly picture. My personal talk page is still active if you want to reply there. thank you, Sparklecplenty 22:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You have to realize that though I have a fair bit of experience on Wikipedia in general, I also have little or no knowledge of the subject specifically. Since the last time I looked at the article, the main changes I could see were that the Criticism or Controversy section has been dispersed to different sections of the article. I don't know if that is good or bad, it's certainly arguable either way. If you can give a link or diff of sections with specific questions you want me to help discuss, I can try to do that. If you have been specifically insulted, you can also give a diff to that, and I can also see if I can help there. --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Dear AnonEmouse, please read the section with the title above, on the Alice Bailey talk page. You may understand, that anyone who wishes to balance this article is made into a 'strawman", the above section is one example. It was entered on October 15th. Thanks. Sparklecplenty01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's see. Talk:Alice_Bailey#Passive-aggressive_conflict-of-interest_drive-by_edit. James went to Citizendium and wrote an article on Alice Bailey there. So far so good, it's a very similar project, with tighter controls, but similar goals -- more power to him. Then he copied and pasted that version here. Not so good, since it was quite clear that such wholesale change would not be welcome without discussion; he specifically writes on http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_Bailey that he left because the editors here didn't like his version, so he was quite aware of this sentiment. He then reverted himself two minutes later, so I guess it wasn't meant as the latest shot in the war... I'm not quite sure what the purpose was. Perhaps to get a version into the edit history to compare to? The diff is vast, with many minor differences, but the main difference I could immediatly see seemed to be that James took out the sourcing for the criticisms, and, in fact, almost all of the criticisms themselves, in many cases replacing them with an active defense. So I couldn't call his version balanced.
Anyway, so, Catherine looked what James's name was on Citizendium, and noticed that he was, in fact, an associate of Phillip Lindsay, they wrote together. I recall that name from previous arguments, and am not quite sure why that is necessarily such a terrible accusation. The talk page section seems to end appropriately - James has moved on, let's wish him luck at Citizendium. --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Editing the Alice Bailey article has been a tough process. Sparklecplenty is trying to say that it is my fault, or Catherine's fault, that Jamesd1 stopped editing, and that the article does not read exactly the way she wants it to read. But that is just how Wikipedia works, and it does not look like what I wanted either.
You are one of three administrators who she has contacted to see if they will undo what she does not like about the article. Kwork16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly won't if she can't tell me specifically what that is. I understand the whole thing is contentious, but the article and talk page has been so huge, I need specific bits to focus on. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
images?
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
AnonEMouse, is there a Wikipedia resource on how to include images in an article? I have noticed that the Calligraphy article has no information on Hebrew calligraphy, and would like to include an image and some information. (I have been a calligrapher by profession for the last thirty years, and know a little about the subject...although Hebrew calligraphy is not part of my work.) Kwork17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, quite a bit! Wikipedia:Images is the tip of that iceberg. Basically you want to hit "Upload file" in the "toolbox" on the left hand side of your screen there, follow instructions on that form to specify where the image came from, then add
[[Image:MyImage.gif|thumb|Description]]
to the appropriate place in the article, and there it will be. (There are lots of other parameters, but that's a good start.) Or you can ask more specific questions, and I can answer them.
You can even go farther than just editing Calligraphy; I notice most specific types have sub-articles of their own, and I would think Hebrew calligraphy would be a great article to start. You can certainly include digital images of your work, if there aren't others, but with such an ancient language, I would guess there would be quite a few definitive ancient examples that would be even better. Or maybe you could include some pictures of modern HC and some ancient HC, for comparison.
There are lots of image debates that come up with people wanting to include commercial copyrighted pictures in the Wikipedia, which we can't do, but photos of artworks over 100 years old or so are generally considered public domain, and with ancient Hebrew calligraphy you'd be talking about artworks over 1000 years old... --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Socratic Barnstar
For answering so many questions, helping me and others through bad times and good, bad moods and good, for generally acting as a mentor to me and others, and for doing these things always with supreme skill, patience and humor, I give you this award with gratitude. Wikipedia would be a far less welcoming place without your presence. Dekkappai00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
An Rfc on Sparkleplenty ?
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is all of this forum shopping and making of false accusations and wikilawyering enough to justify an Rfc . Or should we wait to see if if she or the others start an edit war. ? : Albion moonlight22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What, for asking for help on my user talk page? There's nothing wrong with that, that is what it is here for. It comes with the mop.
Please, don't fight. I'm sure you have something useful to contribute, and she has something useful to contribute. Focus on that, not on trying to somehow sanction the other person. We're all in this together. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Response
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear AnonEmouse, Many thanks for clearing up the ambiguity about whether internet resources or printed material should be used for Wikipedia articles, on the talk page about the category of "Deaths in January 2007" regarding my comments on the death of Avis M. Dry. I appreciate your doing this. While I am here, I wish to commend you for having one of the most imaginative and lovely usernames of all Wikipedians! ACEOREVIVED19:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem with james and His wife has been resolved, for now
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am still very open to you helping Spakleplenty or James find their way to neutrality, but now that they have been declared to have a conflict of interest they are no longer a threat to the neutrality of the Bailey article. Danny : Albion moonlight09:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
talking for myself
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What I most appreciate about you is your strict adherence to the rule of "no personal attacks". It seems the other editors want to talk for me. I am the only one left that has a more comprehensive knowledge of Alice Bailey. I have had time to test the waters since last writing to you. The article has lost it perspective, the references veer off into relatively unrelated tangents. Not much effort has been made to find verifiable sources. And as the last man standing with much Bailey knowledge, when I attempt to edit balance into the article I am attacked. I am willing to explain, to point out, the areas where the article has done astray. If your interested I can give you one or two examples to start with. Sparklecplenty21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The article states that in the third paragraph of the "Early life" section that the subject says in her autobiography that she was raped twice while her family lived on a ranch in Montana and that it was as a result of her experiences there that she ceased to reside with her family. That was the reason for the inclusion of the category. You'll note that she's now also mentioned as the, to date, single "Notable resient" of Fromberg, Montana. Whether you consider it enough for such inclusion is a decision I cannot make. I will try to replace into more specific categories later today, should the category remain in place. John Carter13:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a passing residence of less than a year. I'm not sure what the criteria for being "from" a place are, for purposes of our category, but I thought something more significant more than that, either birth in a place, or long term residence for most of their lives, or their most notable period, would be required. Most modern people change residences quite a few times in their lives, and listing every place they ever lived for even short periods would requires most of our entries to be included in half a dozen categories of "people from". --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, several people already are listed in many such categories, like all the pro athlete from Team X categories out there. Not saying that I necessarily disagree with you however. I guess my reasoning here was that this residence, while comparatively short in terms of time, seems to have made a farily serious lasting impact on the subject. I'm not sure whether that in general is considered sufficient cause or not, however. John Carter13:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Does wiki fave a policy and or guidelines pursuant to Quotes and or Quote farms ?
I think that Wiki Quotes is likely to be the appropriate place for the vast majority of the Bailey quotes. I think that it is safe to assume that that is at least one of the major reasons for its existence. Danny Weintraub : : Albion moonlight15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find a specific guideline; there was one proposed called Wikipedia:Quotations but it didn't succeed. That said, there is a general consensus that articles should not be overladen with quotes, but where that line is is a matter of opinion. Let me see what Alice Bailey looks like:
Lead section: no quoted phrases, just a quoted term
Biography: no long quotes, several quotes of sentence fragments
Teachings: ah, here it is. Almost every other sentence contains a quoted fragment. In fact, the longer ones are about Bailey, not by her.
Influence: more quotes about her.
Sigh. I personally would remove the "" marks about many of those fragments, and rephrase just a bit. But that is mainly style, and I would no more bring up a style argument in an article under heated debate like this than I would ask that a few more candles be brought in to make a dynamite factory more cozy.
I strongly suspect that the quotes are being used defensively, since otherwise critics question the same statements as original research, interpretation, etc. I distinctly recall being called in to give an opinion about just that, someone put in a fairly well justified statement, but without quote marks around it, and critics wanted to delete it as original research. I see that one sentence has something like six citation marks behind it now, for bulletproofing. If we don't want the article festooned with quote marks like this, I think we need to be a bit nicer to the people actually adding information, and not nitpick quite as much.
None of this is suitable for export to Wikiquote - that is for quotable phrases, not for fragments that are essentially being used as their own references. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I read something that Cat had to say about not wanting to return the article back into a quote farm and just thought I should prepare myself. It used to be far worse than it is now. I have no strong opinion about that article. I do have a strong opinion about people who cheat and or have ulterior motives for editing . I think they should be barred for life. Jossi seems to agree with Cat about quote farms but I only realized that after I asked you about it. In my opinion we have a consensus now and would be fools to allow that article to be returned to the Alice Bailey fan club article. I also believe that adding is better than reverting but ..... . Danny W : Albion moonlight 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) : Albion moonlight01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Image
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think that when reviewing that category, I noticed the image was sourced and removed the tags that said otherwise. How I ended up deleting it still... At any rate, thanks for the catch. -- John Reaves19:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(De-wiki birthdate, per WP:MOS.)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am going to start making edits along with Parsifal and the others . There is still enough of us to maintain a reosonable argument against any claim they make toward consensus . I think the whole matter is an outrage. Please help. : Albion moonlight13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. I think this is the, or at least a, problem, from User talk:Kwork: "There is no point in a temporary block because, as I have already said, when I return I will immediately restore the material Jossi censored. To achieve your goal you will have no choice but to make the block permanent. In any case this block is the best thing that has happened to me in quite some time, and I will certainly not miss working with editors that I do not respect. (By the way you never did say which editors you think I insulted.) Be well. Thanks. Kwork 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)"
If Kwork wants to leave, we can't make him stay. If he writes that if unblocked, he will go back to doing whatever he was blocked for, that is not a good sign. By the way, what exactly was that thing he was blocked for? --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also it bothers me a bit that you seem to think our goal is thwarting consensus. Isn't our goal supposed to be achieving consensus? Note that our definition of Wikipedia:consensus is a lot laxer around here - we don't insist on complete agreement, just something that all sides can, grudgingly, live with. --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Why Kwork was blocked indefinitely
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Also did you notice that Cat quit over this ?? I have seen cases where people were blocked for going against consensus. Kwork did not try and reinstate the edits Jossi deleted. : Albion moonlight14:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ouch. I don't know if I would have blocked him over that, but that wasn't a nice thing to write. He certainly should not have restored it after someone else objected enough to delete it. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 15:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC]
I think you are missing the point When he came back from his original block by Jossie he did not restore what Jossi had deleted. Am I wrong about this ?
It looks like Jpgordon blocked him for failing to shut up on command. Please comment. : Albion moonlight15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
He came close.[9][10] But that's splitting hairs. The important point is that article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. They're not for attacking anyone, not even the long-dead article subject. There is a noticeable difference between writing "the article subject is a vicious antisemitic liar, and anyone who follows her is a halfwit", and "we should write in our article that the following reliable sources question the veracity of the article subject". The article talk page is for discussing the latter. It is not for discussing the former. If Kwork understands the difference, and can promise to stick to improving the article, and not go off on rather harsh attacks on anyone who follows AAB, I'll unblock him myself. Or, rather, I'll ask JPGordon if he minds first, but from reading JPGordon's talk page, I gather he wants to wash his hands of the whole sordid mess, so I think he won't mind. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear AnonEmouse, two editors of the three that did an afc on Kwork aren't Alice Bailey students. There were many reasons why the afc, incivility was one. Anyone whom Kwork personally believes shallows everything that Alice Bailey says, he makes into a "anti-Semitic strawman." Just keyword Kwork and you can see what I say is fact. If you reinstate kwork then you are saying it is okay for someone to continue to be insulting to other editors, that is, if the insulting one is personally liked or has the same views as the administrators. You're reinstatement of Kwork makes it look as if I was wrong when I told Kwork and Albion that you aren't their personal administrator. I am hoping that you just did not know what has been going on. It's difficult to keep up with the massive stream of writing on the discussion page, and may not have noticed that Catherine expresses a anti-gentile bias. And you couldn't possible know, not knowing Alice Bailey writings, that Catherine has written fiction into the AAB biography to support what she believes--it is a hateful piece of writing, due to her focus on the parts of the article that supports her personal view.
The is a metaphysical work that includes reincarnation and karma. Common sense tells us that the oldest living religion and culture has accumulated some karmic problems. It only takes an ounce of metaphysical understanding to know that all of humanity has incarnated several times into this ancient culture and religion. This ancient culture has contributed a great deal to who we are as a humanity--good and bad. I have never had an objection to putting her criticism of the races and the Jewish people in the article. I ask for balance that shows why AAB thinks as she does on these issues. Her actual views are minimized by selectively leaving out key ideas and context. For instance the editors remove her criticism of the nazis, hitler, and any reference to her compassion for the Jewish people. Another example is the way Kwork constantly worked to eliminate references to AAB's Jewish disciple Assagioli.
This is not a complete list. I could go on an on with details of how the anti-AAB editors have continuously added and removed things as part of a concerted program that inserts their personal bias into the article. This whole thing is not complicated. Many of the editors hate AAB. It's that simple. If you can not see this, the article is doomed and the integrity of Wikipeida (so far as this type of article is concerned) along with it. Sparklecplenty16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually Wiki's arbcom has declared most of the tpyes of articles psuedo-scientific. I know that this makes for a sad state of affairs amongst the believers but it is just the way things are. Neutrality is is in the eye of the beholder, : Albion moonlight18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten email from Kwork, where he writes that he appreciates my helpful inclinations, but believes I might be better off not involved. Sigh.
In response to Albion and Sparkle, however: the "type" of the Alice Bailey article is not pseudo-scientific, it is biography. Not praise or polemic. We should not care whether she was a good or bad person in order to write a good article. We should be able to write a good article about a saint or a villain. We have articles about Charles Manson, and Pol Pot, Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Theresa. In each case they are biographies. In Bailey's case, she was a writer, so we want to write about her writing. But we don't have to say whether what she wrote was The Truth or lies; our articles about fiction writers need to be just as good as our articles about historians. (In fact, better. What historian is as notable as William Shakespeare?) And in no case should it matter what our editors are; we should be able to read the article without being able to tell whether it was written by a follower of Bailey or a hater of Bailey, Jew or Gentile, New Age Mystic or Atheistic Skeptic. It shouldn't matter.
I really hope I'm not speaking into the wind. I write this, and people seem to listen for a while, and then I get posts about how some other editor feels about Gentiles, or how whether Bailey is a liar, or Sjoo is a nut case. This isn't about our philosophies, folks. This is only about an encyclopedia article. We aren't here to write the truth, merely what other people wrote. If Bailey is a liar (or a saint) - so what? We still write what she wrote. If Sjoo is a nut case (or brilliant) - so what? We still write what she wrote. Our article is supposed to reflect what the world thinks, not Wikipedia:The Truth. --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you AnonEMouse. My reference to the Pseudoscience was a reference to to Channeling ,astrology , and reincarnation. These subjects are also subjects that sell lots and lots of books. I would love to believe that I could communicate with the dead through a medium or know my fate through an astrologer but I have lost all my superstitions to logic. I was trying to mildly suggest to Sparkle that there is no way in hell that Wiki's attitude toward these subjects will change in the near future. : Albion moonlight23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
A sordid mess is exactly right.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
But thank you very much AnonEMouse I will pass this info on to Kwork.
Wiki lost a terrific editor when it lost Catherine I find the fact that she could well be right about Jpgordon to be very disturbing indeed. : Albion moonlight18:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Goodbye from Sparkle and my last words
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
AnonEMouse wrote:
… it is biography. Not praise or polemic. We should not care whether she was a good or bad person in order to write a good article. We should be able to write a good article about a saint or a villain.... And in no case should it matter what our editors are; we should be able to read the article without being able to tell whether it was written by a follower of Bailey or a hater of Bailey, Jew or Gentile, New Age Mystic or Atheistic Skeptic. It shouldn't matter.
...people seem to listen for a while, and then I get posts about how some other editor feels about Gentiles, or how whether Bailey is a liar, or Sjoo is a nut case. This isn't about our philosophies, folks. ... We aren't here to write the truth, merely what other people wrote. If Bailey is a liar (or a saint) - so what? We still write what she wrote. If Sjoo is a nut case (or brilliant) - so what? We still write what she wrote. Our article is supposed to reflect what the world thinks....--AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse, you are closest to a voice of reason than anyone else I've met here. So I'm leaving this, my last message to the Wikipedia with you. I'm going to sign off for good after this message to you.
I'm in complete agreement with most of what you say above. But if you think most of the editors have put praise and polemic aside, and that they don't care if she was good or bad, a saint or a villain, etc… If you think that's what has and is happening, then I believe we have a different view on it. If you read the history in the discussion forum, it is clear that the article is often controlled by editors with a bias, by those with powerful negative emotions about Bailey's words. The emotions are not hidden-people have openly expressed them. Kwork once went so far as to assert that it was not just that AAB's writings contained some anti-Jewish statements, but rather that everything (THAT'S EVERYTHING) she wrote, the whole of it, is anti-Jewish.
You have to ask yourself why it is, that a group of related editors mostly without any real interest in or knowledge of AAB's writings as a whole, stick around this forum and do edits.
You're absolutely right that we should not be able to tell if the editors are "a hater of Bailey, Jew or Gentile, New Age Mystic or Atheistic Skeptic." But you can tell. It is obvious. Especially to anyone who has more than a surface reading of AAB.
Here is question: how do you shape a biography with your bias in it while making it look like you follow Wiki rules? The answer is two things:
Selection
Omission
AAB wrote a massive amount, then there is a ton of things to select from and a ton of things to leave out. In ideal world, the section would be guided by desire to reflect what she wrote. That is, be accurate and proportionate. And in the same in citing those who wrote about her.
If you carefully read history of what has been inserted and left out, of what has been clipped or removed, and expanded and developed, if you did that I believe you would see it. But it is too much work for anyone to expect you would do it. I've given many examples of this sad history, but everyone ignores it.
Sometimes the obvious bias is corrected, but sometimes not.
Occasionally editors make stuff up by substitution of a personal word or phrase that is not in the source cited. But mostly the bias is shown by selection and omission.
Every editor must choose to include and what to leave out. It is in that selection that the bias most often shows when it is present. By selecting this part and leaving out that, you can make someone seem to say the opposite of what they really wrote. Selection and leaving out process is a big thing, A BIG THING.
The leaving out process can amount to censorship. Unless you know the books or do a key word search to see what is left out, you will not realize what has happened.
We all have bias. We should if we are honest editors mostly set it aside. Many are not doing it. The result shows and it will likely show more in the future.
Sometimes bias is subtle. Did you know, for instance that Starre channeled DK, but that AAB only "claimed" to do so:
"Bailey's legacy as a channeler of Djwal Khul, the "Tibetan" teacher whom she claimed was the co-author of many of her books…"
"Starre has channeled Bailey's old teacher twice…"
About censorship, I still don't understand why the "I AM movement" is just a "cheap comedy." When that is only about one-forth of what she actually said in the "cheap comedy" sentence. Look it up. I put in exactly what she said about it. An editor removed it. I brought this to everyone's attention, and was loudly ignored. The fragment is till in the article in the place of what she actually said. Now why is it that we "soft peddle" what she said about this movement but we do not when it comes to the Jewish people or some other issues. I wonder.
I wonder why editors find it important to tell readers of something like Bailey's influence on a pop-culture song. Yet there is very little on AAB's cosmology. Maybe a pop culture song is an easier subject or more personally interesting to editors than AAB's 1,367 page "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire." Hey, let's surf the net and insert whatever we come across. Great scholarship that! I believe that DK would see the focus on the song rather than the Fire another example of "cheap comedy."
One of the worst cases of selection and bad paraphrase-bias is:
"Racial theories
Bailey upheld theories of racial differentiation that posited a division of humanity into races that are on different levels in a "ladder of evolution". For example, she said that the Aryans, as an "emerging new race", are the most evolved people on Earth. In her book Education in the New Age [89], Bailey made predictions about the use of occult racial theories in the schools of the future, which she said would be based on racial cohorts such as Lemurians (physically adept), Atlanteans (emotionally adept), Aryans (mentally adept), and the New Race with "group qualities and consciousness and idealistic vision." In her The Destiny of the Nations, Bailey described a process [90] by which the "new race" will evolve from Caucasians, after which "low grade human bodies will disappear, causing a general shift in the racial types toward a higher standard."
The first line above is linked to Education in the New Age page 136. Please do this one thing for me. Check the references and you will see how this paragraph is an invention of the editor. Page 136 makes no reference to "emerging new race" or "ladder of evolution." These concepts of course exists in AAB but the above is a distortion. The two phrases in quotes do not even occur in the book cited. And of great importance, the idea expressed in the first line is no where to be found on page 136 of the book.
Bailey never uses the phrase physically, emotionally, or mentally adept and the concept as expressed here is useless and misleading without context. In AAB, we all have a mix of these as Lemurians, Atlanteans, Aryan type in us. There are no pure types and it all relates more to consciousness than to body.
The Caucasian reference is a bad selection paraphrase from:
"Second, the emerging of a new racial type. The subjective outlines of this type can already clearly be seen. So glamored are we by the form side that many claims are made today that the new race is to be found in America. The new race is forming in every land, but primarily in those lands where the fifth or Caucasian races are to be found. Among the fourth race peoples, however, a few, such as those to be found among the Chinese and the Japanese, are being discovered by the Hierarchy and are making their real and esoteric contribution to the whole."
"So glamored are we by the form side" means don't go all ego on this body type thing. Why is that so hard to understand?
Now:
Now, I wonder what happened to this part of the article:
For Bailey, the matter of prime importance was not race or religion but the evolution of consciousness that transcends these. In fact, the esoteric meaning of "race" in Bailey's writings is "consciousness:"
"" there is no new race in process of appearing, from the territorial angle; there is only a general distribution of those persons who have what have been called the sixth root race characteristics. This state of consciousness will find its expression in people as far apart racially as the Japanese and the American or the Negro and the Russian." Bailey, Alice A. The Rays and the Initiations, Lucis Trust. 19607. p. 593-594)
I'm gone now. This is goodbye to you and to discussion and the article. Thanks for your effots. I ask that, you check the references for "Racial theories" and pay attention in future to this bias process:
Selection
Omission
That's where the story is. But you have to check the references or know the books to see it.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, AnonEMouse. I noticed your adding Fuko to the pornproject. This leads to a few questions/problems... She is (for now anyway-- she posed nude, underage, at one time, and has disavowed connection with those photos) a gravure idol, which means she does not pose nude, or appear in any AVs (Adult Videos, which contain real or simulated acts of sex). Instead, she poses in bikinis in videos, photo albums, and in public appearances. Wiki's definition of pornography is, " the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief." It could be argued (persuasively) that these gravure videos & photo albums are arousing, and have that intent, however there is no explicit representation... Also, if Fuko is considered porn, then there's a whole list of others who would fall in that category as well. So do they belong, or don't they? I'm not saying absolutely no, these gravure idols shouldn't be in the project, but I lean on the "no" side. Any further thoughts? Dekkappai16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Although none of this is OR: I am curious as to what requires citations and what doesn't. I have taken on this article as a project
Dan Crary Was born on September 29th of 1939 Kansas City Kansas. He is a guitarist and an innovator of the flatpicking style of guitar playing. He is also a Speech communications Professor at California State University, Fullerton. Along with Doc Watson,Tony Rice, Norman Blake. David Grier ,and many others he is considered a premier performer of the bluegrass flatpicking guitar style today. In 1970 Crary released the first bluegrass album built around the guitar aptly called Bluegrass Guitar.
The paragraph above is a slight rewrite but the rest of it was written by others. He is by no means a controversial figure. Could you give me an idea as to what requires citations in that particular paragraph, and how I should go about doing it ?. Is this web cite sufficient as a source. [11]: I am extremely new at this. : Albion moonlight11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Honestly, most articles are not nearly as hard to write as Alice Bailey. Anyway, the web site seems to be a good enough source, since it's not just some anonymous fan, but the online site of a published magazine. When you cite it, make sure to write that. Here is how I would do it1
<ref name=Flatpicking>[http://www.flatpick.com/Pages/Featured_Artist/crary.html "Dan Crary: Flatpicking Legend"],
by Joel Stein, ''Flatpicking Guitar Magazine'', Volume 2, Number 1 (November/December 1997). Retrieved [[2007-11-01]].</ref>
then, at the end of the article
== References ==
{{reflist}}
there are other ways, for example using the {{cite news}} template, that give similar results. You probably want to put his official personal site, http://dancrary.com in an External links section, and you can get some undisputed facts from there (list of bands, list of awards), citing it, but don't cite it for praise. Similarly http://thunderation.com, that seems to be his official commercial or band site. For praise, I'd avoid the "(along with long list) is considered a premier performer" line, and instead write "released Bluegrass Guitar (1970), the first bluegrass lead guitar album.", citing that article. That, in my uneducated opinion, makes it more clear that he is notable in the field. Don't use the "aptly called" sentence directly from the other article - it's debatable whether lifting just one sentence is really actionable plagiarism, but it's still better to rephrase. I'm not sure where you get his birthday, the article only says he was 12 in 1952, and I can't find it on his personal site's bio page. Here are another couple of links that may be helpful:
[14] Article from Bluegrass Now magazine. More useful than the above one, gives family details, for example. It seems to be all right to mention his wife, since Crary talks about her himself, doesn't keep her secret or anything.[15]
Absolutely. Print sources are excellent. You generally want to give title, author, publication date (ISBN if possible), and page number. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Good. I think I have chosen a good place to start subject wise. I know some other web sites to grab some information. Plus I used to frequent Bluegrass and folk festivals where he played. I have even jammed with him a few times in the past. If I run into trouble I will ask for more help. But thanks again. : Albion moonlight16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Many thanks for the protection on the above article. It was starting to get somewhat onerous. No doubt they'll hit somewhere else soon :( ---- WebHamster01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Alas that disruptive IP editor 217.42.76.143 is at it again as can be seen from his contribs. He seems to be working his way down the list of articles I've got on my user page. I don't intend going round reverting everything he's doing, likewise I can't go round asking for page protection on everything I've ever contributed to. The problem is that other than the fact he's doing it out of bad faith, to harass me and to make a point he's not actually breaking rules with the notability tags, though some of the comments left could be deemed to be non-civil. Any suggestions as to what to do? Cheers. ---- WebHamster14:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The Mo Foster edits are clearly in bad faith, I semi-protected the article. For the others, the best way to show notability is to give a few Wikipedia:reliable sources writing about them. Magazine articles like the ones on the Mo Foster article are fine. Other options are awards, listing of "chart" placements, that sort of thing. But, honestly, I was debating whether to protect the article or block the IP. If he deletes more information, drop me a note and I'll block him. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
They are actually on my list of things to do. Currently I've been spending most of my time on what is proving to be quite a large article, Belle Vue Zoo, but I suppose I can take time off it to expand those stubs a bit. To be perfectly honest I can't see it making a difference to whether he continues to place the tags as has been shown in the past. I suspect that this IP is actually a sockpuppet of Yiwentang as most of the range of IPs all point to the same ISP, ie BT, whereas the other user that had only a small part in the harassment used Entanet. None of the IPs used resolve back to the Janet network so I presume they aren't using the Plymouth Uni/Student Union computers and are doing it from home. Thanks for the advice though. ---- WebHamster15:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
'sockpuppets!!!?" whatever. The deletions made to Mo foster were backed up with civil discussion all of which was rapidly deleted. In essence the references and magazines are either fake i.e. no page numbers etc or user edited e.g. IMDB. As Mo Foster is of none-celebrity status with no major credits, UK hits or citations from reliable sources could you elaborate and explain whether it is permissable to publish a CV/self-promo in WP? Also what is the point of a discussion page if issues which you happen to disagree upon are deleted. As for the Plymouth Uni i fail to see why this is relevant to the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi AnonEMouse... I had added a note about this following a long comment above on your talk page, but on re-reading it later I decided to remove my note, to avoid any impression that it was a direct response, which it was not. Mainly I just wanted to let you know that the reference mentioned in the comment as not supporting the article text appeared to simply be a wrong page number listed in the article. The correct page numbers, in the same book, are 69-71; In the downloadable files, it's this one: edu1023.html . The content of the paragraph seems to be supported by the reference, with the corrected page numbers. I did not write that paragraph in the article, I don't know who wrote it, but after finding the correct page numbers, I've corrected the page number in the article footnote. --ParsifalHello04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Perhaps you could tell us all why you blocked a discussion between an adminstrator who has been exposed for ripping off celeb photos and some users he blocks for no other reason than he suspects they are part of the Plymouth Students union ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.179.222 (talk • contribs) 21:14, November 1, 2007
Sorry for not responding earlier, you placed this comment at the top of my talk page in the archivebox comment. I semi-protected The Hamsters and its talk page because what was going on was not discussion but namecalling and abuse. Others had tried to remove the abuse and respond to the actual substantive comments, but it was repeatedly restored. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"The reason you gave to justify your vandalism was 'WP is not a phone book'. In case you had failed to observe the article did not list any telephone numbers moreover it referred to a university and a musuem which most reasonably intelligent people would assume has more to do within the academic research of an encyclopedia than a promo for selling spuds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)"
"Stirring stuff -- I think, but I'm not entirely sure. What do you think this person's first language might be, Hamster? -- Hoary 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)"
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WebHamster"
The discussion pages are festooned with similar non-academic and puerile comments from your administrators. Is this how you want others to perceive how Wikipedia works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 ( (talk • contribs) 11:36, November 2, 2007
This is called "how the sausage is made" :-). No, I would prefer others to perceive the Wikipedia works by polite, reasoned discussion, recognizing that all sides want to improve the encyclopedia, and trying to reach agreement, or at least compromise. But it does occasionally happen that people edit not in good faith, but instead in order to damage the encyclopedia, for whatever reason. When that happens, we have to do things such as protect articles and block users. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles are linked to, on line at Foster's web site, with reference to specific issue and author. That is sufficient for most reference purposes. If you are suggesting that they are falsified, could you please give your reasons why? --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)"
I urge you to look again at them. Most link to the users own web-site and are not actual magazine articles but quotes allegedly taken from those magazines. Indeed all but a handful of them still exist and for those that do if you search their databases for 'Mo Foster' you will get a not found message.
Check out the link to ^ Mick Ronson fansite - see what i mean?
All i asked for was specific dates/edition numbers and page numbers of those magazine quotes however my qeustions were rapidly deleted. Without that information there is no way of verifying the validity of those quotes.
The specific dates for the magazines are given. The online version on the magazine's own sites aren't very thorough, either only having the current issues, or not going back that far. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The purpose i perceive the block is in place is to prevent new and better informed users to add to this article - such as the 'purple Berlin Wall' issue, images of its nightlife culture, its expansion and development into one of europes leading arts quarters, its academic and artistic history and connections - Joshua reynolds, Charles Babbage etc however i fear the article could be lost due purely to the fact it conflicts with the promotion of a shopping mall and to further achieve that aim chunks of its content will gradually be stripped away by those administrators promoting the mall as was demonstrated by the deletion of the major institutions in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
To further help, there are two articles involved in this, i.e. Drake Circus an article about an area in Plymouth, and Drake Circus Shopping Centre a seemingly controversial shopping mall. For some reason there seems to be several anon IP editors getting up in arms about how the articles conflict and are allegedly causing upset, defamation and copyright infringements to residents and businesses in the area. The talk pages of both articles should give you the run down. ---- WebHamster18:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think I see. Drake Circus is an area of the city of Plymouth in England, and location of Plymouth University, and Drake Circus Shopping Centre. For whatever reason, people from PU resent the fact that DCSC calls itself DCSC, whilst people from DCSC resent the fact that Drake Circus is used to refer to something other than DCSC, and the articles have taken damage from the resulting back-and-forth editing. Therefore, both those article have been protected from anonymous editing until some kind of peace can be established. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Right?
If that is basically right, then I, at least, would be pleased as punch if the DC article were to be expanded explaining about Reynolds and Babbage and other things. With references, hopefully. However, I fear that if it were unprotected, it would, instead, be used to remove any reference to DCSC and add a list of shops. Any assurances otherwise? --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yup, bang on the nose, you've got it. Meanwhile Hoary and myself are caught in the middle by trying to explain the rules and stopping the articles turning into another battle of the Somme. My involvement was initiated when I slapped a CSD notice on an attempt to create a 3rd article Drakecircus (now a redirect to the shopping centre). During the edit war Yiwentang was blocked due to retaliatory vandalism, as were several anon IPs from various members of the Student's Union of Plymouth Uni. A couple of the IPs were the aforementioned user's sockpuppets. additionally 4 or 5 articles have had to be protected and still the crap flies. Personally I'd delete both articles as neither have demonstrated notability per se. ---- WebHamster18:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
See, I think I know what WebHamster meant when he said the list of shops was a phonebook. He's basically right, though of course there aren't any phone numbers on the list. Basically he meant that it was a list of information of only current value; information that will change from year to year, and only really be of value to people who want to shop there right now. It's a phonebook in the sense that to be current a new issue has to come out every year. Unlike, say, an encyclopedia, which is supposed to contain information that is a bit less sensitive to the passage of time than that. A hundred years from now, no one will care that such and such a book shop was there from 2005 through 2007, unless it was a truly exceptionally notable book shop in its own right. They will care if Charles Babbage or Joshua Reynolds did something important there, because those were truly exceptionally notable people. If you have information (hopefully with references) about those, please do say. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"A hundred years from now, no one will care that such and such a book shop was there from 2005 through 2007, unless it was a truly exceptionally notable book shop in its own right."
Totally agree - now can we delete references/links to Spud-u-like, Marks&spencers, Next etc on the article on the mall which others have tried in vain to do. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
(as for all this babble about sock puppets/SU etc people in this area do actually communicate with each other so its hardly surprising you are going to geo-locate all the ISP's to the same area) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.76.143 (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Is there any history of either Mr. Lewis or his lawyers contacting Wiki pursuant to the accusations that he murdered one if not two of his many wives. It was a major story in Rollng Stone magazine years ago.He was never charged but the story included an accusation of a cover up by the local authorities.
There may have been a wiki fight over this in the past so please tell me if Jimbo and or the rest of
the elites have declared this info off limits due to Blp. If I write it will be as subtle as I can make it but even a sentence or 2 has the potential of being seen as a coatrack. : Albion moonlight03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Not that I know of. There is a question about that on the article talk page, but it doesn't get any good answer, and there aren't any talk page archives. I gather it just hasn't been written about yet. A coatrack article is usually about people not famous except for one event, that is really writing about the event under the person's name. Jerry Lee Lewis is famous for quite a number of things, including legendary hit music, and, yes, multiple scandals. As long as we don't skimp on the coverage of the music, which should be substantial, writing about the scandals is also important. Rolling Stone is about as respected as source as their is in the music world. Make sure everything you write is well sourced, don't read more into the article than it says. I gather you mean "The Strange and Mysterious Death of Mrs. Jerry Lee Lewis", Richard Ben Cramer, Rolling Stone, March 1, 1984? I can't find that on line anywhere, but it is mentioned in several places. I imagine you can find it in a library, many are good at collecting Rolling Stone. It would be good to have the actual story you are citing, not just a paraphrase. The Rolling Stone biography will do, but having the full length story is better. Good luck. --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, here, you absolutely would need to use inline references, as I advised with #Dan Crary, above. I noticed you didn't do that there. I advise using better references even on Dan Crary, but here, if you want to write about someone being suspected of murder, you absolutely need to use very good referencing. WP:CITE is the guideline in question. --AnonEMouse(squeak)15:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes don't worry. I am just taking my own sweet time with the Crary article but with the Lewis article I will reference it as part of the initial edit. I thought of that already.
I am waiting for a book from the library on Lewis called Hellfire but once again anything I write about him that is in the least bit controversial will be done with strict adherence to
Wiki policy. : Albion moonlight23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. I assume the are both nominated already.?? I think wiki is eally going to miss Fred Bauder. Thank, You I already know a bit about New York Brad but
I will look into Raul654 as well. : Albion moonlight21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 Murray15:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I weighed in there, and found you some more sources for his bio; added to the AfD page, hopefully you'll do the honors of mining them for actual facts for the article. Don't put "notes" on the main article page, though, if you want to address something about the AfD, use the AfD page. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Anon. Do you have any idea what's up with the Erika Nagai article? It appears to have been deleted, recreated and speedied and salted, without any sort of discussion. As far as the Japanese adult actress articles go, this one wasn't the best of the set, certainly, and I'm not saying for sure that I would even vote "Keep" at an AfD. But the subject certainly seems to me to be notable enough to at least go through an AfD... Dekkappai22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
13:36, September 23, 2007 Alison (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Erika Nagai" (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance / BLP issues / wild speculation / tone / etc, etc)
15:45, September 21, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Erika Nagai" (Unsourced, much speculation, some patent absurdities. We don't need speculative articles on living individuals.)
Let's see what they mean by "BLP issues / wild speculation", since that seems to be the big thing. Aha.
"... This is her most-used alias, and it is rumored to be her real name."
"One of her stunts is using her martial arts knowledge in order to break 2 walnuts with her bare hands. There are detractors however who say that this is nothing more than a trick using special effects, props, fake or weakened walnuts."
"Despite her image as an athletic woman, in one of her videos ... she is seen eating fast food (an Egg McMuffin) for breakfast."
"some speculations suggest that if her black belt is indeed real, then there is the chance she got it at a McDojo and her techniques are bullshido; These detractors believe that her image ... is nothing more than a gimmick"
"has tan lines left either by her underwear ... or a two piece swimsuit. This could mean that Miss Nagai enjoys tannings."
"Rumored projects... If ... is her true name; then this could be confirmation to the rumor that she has a cameo on the film ..."
I won't go on, I think I see what they meant. Roughly half the article was speculation, and half the rest was uncited criticism of the "some people (whom we won't name, because they're all my cousin Al) say... " variety. I think the third line above there has got to be a classic — other people are found soliciting police officers in public bathrooms or with freezers full of cash; she is seen eating an Egg McMuffin. Oh, the shame. The one about "weakened walnuts" comes a close second. "You no real martial artist! Your walnuts are weak! Weak, I say!" Then the tan lines... The references given were fan websites, and http://www.asiansexgazette.com/asg/japan/japan05news30.htm which could be something except that it is a reprint of a short article which doesn't mention Nagai anywhere in the original, but uses a video cover of her as illustration, only in the reprint.
I think the deleters had a point. If you can find a couple of real sources, you can rewrite, but I don't think very much from the deleted version will help. --AnonEMouse(squeak)13:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I ever worked on the article. And, sure, I'd seen the article as a big problem in the category for quite a while, and had planned to try to work on it. The point, I think, is not whether the article was good-- it clearly wasn't-- but whether Erika Nagai is notable enough for an article. I've heard of her, I know of videos she's been in... My point is that there was never any discussion behind any of these deletions. True, the article may very well fail at AfD, so the result will probably be the same. But at least an appearance of respect for consensus over unilateral decision-making might be upheld. Isn't that what we're supposed to do here? Dekkappai16:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And, come to think of it, I don't recall any sort of "Notability" "Sourcing" or other sort of tagging at the article... (My memory could be faulty here though, since it's been a couple months at least since I looked at the article). Dekkappai17:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I guess they could have deleted three quarters of the article for for WP:BLP issues due being speculative and/or derogatory and/or unsourced, then nominated the small stub that was left at WP:AFD, at which point it would have been deleted 5 days later ... but then Wp:not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: "rules are not the purpose of the community"; "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict.". I would probably not have speedied it for reasons similar to yours, but I'm a bit softer on such things than others. I can't fault them; or at least I'm not going to. It's a procedural error at most, and not a very large one. In the end, the question is "should the Wikipedia have an article on Erika Nagai?" If we can't make a good case that we should, I don't think it's worth raising a big fuss about the fact that we don't. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, the question is "should the Wikipedia have an article on Erika Nagai?" And nobody asked the question, and yet that question was answered in the negative, permanently-- the article deleted and salted-- with no attempt at discussion... A bit more than a procedural error, I feel. Erika Nagai was basically banned from Wiki without input from editors who may have had information and sourcing... I don't have such sourcing on her, but I'd hate to think that a subject on which I do have information and sourcing would be deleted and salted without discussion before I could get to it. Dekkappai17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is permanent around here; I can unsalt it much the same way I can restore it, and if I weren't around you could go to User:Tabercil or User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. or any one of 1200 other Wikipedia:Administrators. Everything is a temporary measure here because the real world changes. If Erika Nagai makes a record breaking film or assassinates the Pope, you will bet the article will be restored quite quickly. Or, rather, in this case, possibly rewritten from scratch, since there wasn't that much useful stuff there, honest. --AnonEMouse(squeak)17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
OK-- thanks again, Anon. This one was really not a big deal, as I can see all the valid reasons the article, as it stood, was removed. But someone might have been able to improve it... I really don't think the "Wikipedia is not a Bureacracy" note applies here either, since that implies endless discussion without getting anything done. AfD is not a long, drawn-out pointless process. It goes over 5 days and allows those interested, or who may have sourcing on the article, to make some valuable input. Five days is not an unbearably long time to mull over an article deletion, and, in this case, it could have saved the whole recreation/re-deletion/recreation/salting drama that I apparently missed while on break. I guess the thing is that I wish there were more Admins like you who look at the position as a carrier of a mop rather than wielder of a sledgehammer. Thanks as always. Dekkappai17:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your explanations and for your assesments! I was a little unsure if it was allowed to asses articles you have more or less written yourself. You left some comments on two of the articles, and as i'm a Swede, perhaps i could help with those. About Jeanette Fredrique Löf; being a foreigner, i can't help with the spelling, but what does it lack in information? If you made chapters in the article of Elisabeth Olin, would it then be a B-article? In the article about Sophie Magdalena of Denmark, iv'e written my own comment on it's talk-page! --85.226.235.16418:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Lof doesn't need very much more information; what exactly is missing I don't know, because I haven't read the sources, I don't know what there is. I can hope for:
who said she was "the greatest and most popular"? Any particular critic, or group of critics? Newspaper? The King? Multiple Kings?
more on her being "the first" - sources about her salary compared to others; was it unusual that she was a woman joint director of her troupe?
more on her life - birth dates for her children, where was she born, where did she live, did she ever marry, divorce?
her career had great support from the upperclasses. - in what sense?
Did she only play in Sweden, did she tour Europe, did she only play in Swedish, or French, or other languages? Who wrote for her? In fact, since she was the greatest and most popular, did writers write parts specifically for her? If so, who and what parts?
more on her dyslexia - the statements now just suggest she couldn't read, which isn't quite the same thing, are there sources that say she actually confused letters, did she get a doctor to look at her?
Organize the sections a bit better. Right now it has Background and Career, but these aren't clear cut - there is stuff on her being an actress in Background, and stuff on her sister in Career. Maybe have parts on her early life before becoming an actress, career as an aspiring actress, career as a senior grande dame, parts on her personal life?
I know English is not your first language, so I can't ask you to correct grammar or to choose between similarly spelled words, but I think even an automatic spell-checker will catch many of the simplest errors, things that just aren't English words, like officiall and colleages and oppened and eskape and imployees and... The latest version of Firefox has one.
You don't need to do all of these things, just some, to get a B, as it is quite close to a B now. If you do all of these things, and get a native English speaker to correct the stuff an automated spell-checker won't, you can start thinking about Wikipedia:Good article... :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to answer this! I have made a comment on the page of Sophia Magdalena of Denmark regarding the question of the image. Regarding Jeanette Fredrique Löf, i should perhaps have discussed the matter on her talk-page! I'm not sure if i know how i should insert the information properly...
She is in all history-books described as the most prominent female star of the newly founded Royal Dramatic theatre; they were opera-stars before her, but as a speaking-part actress, she was the first native primadonna, and the one given most attention. The nobility treated her as one of their own; her affairs was seen the same way as affairs of noblewomen (acceptable) and the critics praised her in heroine-parts as late as 1801. She was made premier-actress the same time she debuted.
She never married, but had several children by unknown fathers. I'll put in their dates!
I have no information of her salary, but she lived in luxury. The board of directors was made of the most prominent actors, male and female, in 1788-1803;Maria Franck and Elisabet Forsselius also had this position.
Many plays was written for her, the king himself did so.
Her dyslexia is an interesting matter; unlike most actresses, she came from a relatively priviliged background; i cant translate her father's title of profession in to English, but he belonged to the very highest postions of the staff at the royal court, and Fredrica grew up quite comfortebly; though not noble, she behaved and was considered a "lady" and was a member of high society, an admired beauty - having a priviliged place as the protegée of the nobility, it is not likely that she did not learn to read an write; this was also, unlike other countrys, necessery by law in Sweden since 1686, as everyone had to read from the bible during controlvisits from the priests. Perhaps it was not possible to diagnose dyslexia in 1788. Anyway, i'm sure that will be corrected by someone who have better sources about that than me!
Well, perhaps i should have just inserted this in the article! I was just a little unsure how to insert it properly, but i'll try sometime! --85.226.235.16421:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks again - off-topic here, but would you mind adding Nonie Darwish to your (probably already extremely extensive) watchlist? According to the article subject, the bio is a magnet for POV-pushing; the history seems to bear this out. I've got it watchlisted myself but probably won't have a lot of time for editing over the next few weeks. Videmus OmniaTalk16:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Hope you don't mind, but I also passed her your e-mail address in case of something particularly egregious that ends up in there, along with the e-mail address for the OTRS folks in case you and me are unavailable. Videmus OmniaTalk16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Peer review list
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My apologies for inadvertently removing content from Peter North (actor). I thought that I was editing the current version, and that I was simply removing the text about Maryville College. Apparently I somehow managed to edit an earlier version of the article. (I had examined numerous earlier versions of the page in my efforts to determine where, when, and by whom the statements about Maryville had been added.) My intent was to restore the paragraph to include only the information it had contained before the Maryville College material was added. Feel free to restore any valid content that I removed, if you have not done so already. It appears to me that my edit may have removed some valid content that has not been restored, but I do not know enough about porn star articles or this subject to determine what is valid to include. Note: Subsequent to your edit, I did remove the wording that said that he was in debt due to college tuition; that information had been added by the same person who added the Maryville College info. --Orlady19:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Godfrey_Bloom.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Godfrey_Bloom.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast22:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for finding a source for her real name. I'd've done it myself but I was at work at the time so I couldn't do a proper online search of sources... :/ Tabercil22:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Alessandra Mussolini.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Alessandra Mussolini.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Sort of. :-) I didn't say much about the suitability of the PNT, but I did find a better source, I think, and even more, evidence that she isn't hiding the name, which is probably most important. Posted there. --AnonEMouse(squeak)20:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Your comments please;
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, you were very helpful on WP:BIO with your advice helping me on my Victor G Bloede effort. I was wondering if you could take a look at it now and let me know what you think. I've reached a writers block on it and I'm wondering if you'd consider it ready to move to mainspace as it is now. Most of my concern is still with the limited amount of references as well as maintaining a WP:NPOV style of writing. In searching for references there are a few other Victor G Bloede's but some are either descendants in a different field or appear to be non-related.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Saryn Hooks.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You've got...
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As you may already be aware, there has been an ongoing dispute over what qualifies as fancruft (or the fansite tag) and should be removed. Please participate in the discussion. I believe purplehayes2006 is too biased to be able to make a distinction. Vinh131320:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Genre box templates and redirects
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a general rule of thumb on how to proceed when it comes to changing a Genre box template.? I want to make the the Blugrass templates differentiate the difference between the 5 string Banjo and the other types of banjo's because the other types are not used in Bluegrass Music.
The Banjo article itself does have a section on the 5 string but I think I need to get consensus to redirect and or fork it to suit my purposes.
Yes ? : Albion moonlight18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how I missed this question. You mean Template:Bluegrassmusic? Templates differ - generally you want to be extremely careful with complicated templates, but this seems to be straightforward. Template talk:Bluegrassmusic also seems to say feel free to edit it, so I'd say go ahead... but I'm not quite sure what you want to do, though, it merely lists Banjo and we don't really have a separate 5 string Banjo article; you want to change the title of that link to "5 string Banjo"? If you think you know what you are doing, though, be bold; at worst someone will complain, and then if you are polite about it, you will be able to come to some compromise. Do take the time to take a look at several articles that use the template immediately after your change, though, and make sure you haven't blown anything up. :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Because we only have the word of an anonymous blogger that the subject confirms it's true. It's not an interview with a reliable source. Luke is quoting the blog post, but he isn't saying "yes, Sasha confirmed this to me", he's just saying "here's what some blogger wrote"; in fact, even if Luke did, we'd worry, because Luke's status as a reliable source is borderline. He's an expert in the field, but he's just one guy, we generally don't use individuals for sources for highly controversial information that aren't backed up by better sources. For highly controversial items about living persons, we want very good sources. For example, your edit to Robin Williams was backed by a very good source. --AnonEMouse(squeak)00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Wanted to alert you of a possible edit war in the Sasha Grey article due to a copyrighted image she uploaded. The image was taken by a friend and colleague of mine and I've raised all of the red flags on the appropriate image pages, commons pages, and discussion pages. Should editors be reinserting the image into the article even when the copyright is in dispute? Vinh1313 (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I was working on something else, but tried to come up with a quick metaphor that would more or less illustrate my position. I hope hat it helps more than confuses.
Speaking for myself, I see this in terms similar to jaywalking. Everyone one jaywalks, it’s a fact of normal life, and every time you do, you are committing a crime – by the black letter of the law. Everyone dos it, because it saves time and its much more efficient then following the letter of the law by going all the way to the cross walks and waiting for the light; and because most people are personally responsible enough to not to do so in a manner that brings harm to themselves or to others. Unless someone acts in such a manner as to violate this, thus causing harm to occur, the police turn a blind eye to the activity. It is this interplay that allows normal life to function; it allows people to get done what needs to get done without undue interference, while at the same time protecting drivers from liability when a pedestrian acts irrespirable. To date I do not think anyone has formulate a law that would allow you to legally walk when its safe, and still hold you accountable when you act stupid, because no one has figured out a way to parse such a distinction within the law; instead parsing comes from enforcement, or lack thereof . Yes from time to time an officer will become over zealous and start enforcing the law under all circumstances, but that will generally bring so many complaints that he/she will back down.
I don’t see how we can word BLP much different, without loosing balance. “All I want is for the policy to say what we actually do” Just as the laws that cover jaywalking do not reflect what is actually done, I do not think we would have much success writing policy that could function competently on its own; for that I think we need to have human intelligence involved, I don’t think you can do it through mere words alone. Thanks :) Brimba02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm worried that WP:BLP policy is taken much more seriously than Jaywalking laws. While a policeman trying to enforce jaywalking laws in all but the most extreme case would be laughed at, I greatly fear that there are plenty of editors and administrators who will take the strongly phrased policy at its word, and remove expert sources from many BLP articles "just to be safe". What can you suggest to avoid that? --AnonEMouse(squeak)03:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
YouTube clip as a reliable source?
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, AnonEMouse. in this edit an anonymous editor has added an interesting little tidbit to the Sora Aoi article. It is sourced, reliably, I think with a clip of the group making this statement on a television program. The only problem may be that this clip is at YouTube, which I know is usually frowned upon. I'm tempted to rewrite and reformat a little, but keep it. Or are these evil and un-reliable-sourcing thoughts sent by Satan himself to tempt me over to the Dark Side? -- Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's Satan, but I do think it's Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light. I just skimmed it, but I don't see them saying that they used a shot of Sora Aoi, just a naked woman. And, frankly, even if it is Sora Aoi, I don't see either them saying that they picked her for some specific reason, or that she got any fame from it, or they got any special infamy from it. So I don't think it adds that much to the article, and given the sourcing problems (the main problem with YouTube is that it's full of rampant copyright violations, which I strongly suspect this is an example of), I don't think it's worth the hassle. Sorry. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, they do name her in the video-- "Miss Sora Aoi, in Japan"-- and do say it was used to draw a crowd... Personally, I find it interesting. I guess I'll just take the path of, "Do nothing, and let someone else remove it..." Darn you to heck, Phil! -- Dekkappai (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see that, but didn't look very hard. Can you see if you can find out and give the name, channel, and date of the TV program? (Arirang TV, I'd guess...) If so, you might be able to cite it as a source even if the YouTube link is removed, similarly to being able to cite a newspaper article for a source even if it's not online. (Stress on the might however.) --AnonEMouse(squeak)19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The lead of her article still needs work, but it turns out that she is still cited as the highest-paid actor in daytime. I was just coming to add a more updated reference to that before you made the New York Times reference past tense. I just added a Los Angeles Times reference as well. How do you feel that should be worded? Her lead definitely can be expanded with other information other than her acclaim. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem making it present tense if you have a more recent reference. I was just worried by the 16 year gap. Feel free to expand further. :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)01:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I was worried about that as well. Now I'm worried that her lead sounds too much like a bragging fan wrote it. And, also, I'm trying to find a better way to reword the mention of New York Times and Los Angeles Times, since they both have the word "Times" in their title. But I'll figure out a better presentation later for her lead. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I just got a bunch of photos from her that I'm about to upload (I was pretty shocked to hear from her, as about half the article deals with her legal troubles)...anyway, she's not objecting to the use of her real name (it's well-sourced) but would prefer to be listed as Melissa Wolf. Wanted to check with you so that I title the photos and Commons gallery the same as the article. Videmus OmniaTalk17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense, that is her web site, and what she was in Penthouse as. Moved. By the way, her web site is God's gift to writing an article - look at all these sources! [17] You know you've been editing too long when you go to a web site about a nude model, and the thing that really interests you are the sources...--AnonEMouse(squeak)00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll see what I can do for article expansion in the not-too-distant future. In a related issue, I got a MySpace message from Sky Lopez, whose article stated that she was born in Minnesota, stating that she had never even visited the state. My removal got reverted by an admin, but I left a note on his talk page before reverting back and hopefully the issue is resolved. Videmus OmniaTalk00:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
All consensuses long debated on the talk page and made by you were reverted, most of sorced with ISBN cases ware changed with soursed from RoM newspapers forgeries. Could you help because the article is locked again! Regards ! Jingby (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My opinion is that it is probably not allowed at the reading of WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable images#12. But Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people gives some valid points as to why the image could be kept, and your explanation is detailed and specific, so probably it's ok. It definitely doesn't bother me personally anyway, you can remove the deletion tag. It could be said that in this case the image is irreplaceable: in order for this article to meet the NPOV policy you need either both or neither picture, and deleting valid material is not a solution. Perhaps it should be moved from the infobox and placed further down the page as is the case for many actor's articles. I think as a general rule when users can't agree (/are not sure ) it is best to keep. Jackaranga (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the rearranging. I am curious about the removal of the house price. People I am sure are wondering what type of lifestyle the guy is living now. We have the info. We should include it unless there is a reason not to, IMO. I am going to readd it, but if you have a reason, you can remove it with a notice on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 21:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant, and it's such a picayune detail that it seems like we are stalking him. The article doesn't say he was particularly rich as a policeman, and just writing that he could buy a home and a boat clearly shows that he is not in the throes of poverty, that should be sufficient. --AnonEMouse(squeak)21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Two questions
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Two questions for you today, AnonEMouse:
When we quote a text which contains spelling and/or grammatical errors, we don't correct them do we? I've had two such corrections made at articles today, here's how I reverted one so want to be sure of my standing on the issue.
Generally not. In the case you're quoting, though, are those his words, or a translation of his words into English? If they're a translation, we should probably correct obvious misspellings.
I have no idea. Some kind of caching problem, I imagine. I changed the image size from the default 200px to 199px, and the new one, with the yellow border, showed up. If you remember, come back in a week, remove the size specification, and see if it is still good. --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it Im's direct statement (in his own English), or a translation? I don't know. Not knowing how good Im's English is, I'd suspect it is a translation. The translation is from the Berlin Film Festival, so the mistake could have come in from a German-Korean-English-speaking translator. But since the Berlin Film Festival is no fly-by-night blog or fansite, I lean towards giving the exact quote, and noting that the errors are in the original and not ours. I couldn't find any official Wiki-policy that specifically addresses the issue though... Dekkappai (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikinews interviews
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As my statement says, I would return actively if elected to arbcom. Past that, there are other things that would get me to return, but none, at the moment, that have. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
re BCBot
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I thought that policy generally is set by the community and that therefor if the community decided that there is a need for a change then that change is implemented. Therefor I made the suggestion that Arbcom should be asked to hear cases involving content in certain Blp cases. Your response seems to suggest that the policy is somehow written in stone and cannot be changed. Please explain.
Albion moonlight (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it can, certainly, change, and perhaps you are correct that it will. However, I did not think that it would, as I saw Arbcom not ruling on content as a rather fundamental part of its charter. The original issue, as I saw it, was that the content in the Wikipedia is vast; that is, after all, the point, "the sum of all human knowledge", and all that. Therefore asking any given 15 people, no matter how wise, to be able to rule authoritatively about essentially all human knowledge would be asking rather a lot of them. Deciding conduct issues, such as whether or not it was OK for a given editor to call another editor names is generally more clear. I guess BLP issues could be seen as a very limited part of all Wikipedia content, but I still think they'll try hard to reject such an expansion of their role. You could always ask, I guess. --AnonEMouse
I may try to build consensus for that very purpose but as you say arbcom would probably strongly resist it. I had not thought of that. : Albion moonlight22:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Re:Congratulations!
AnonEMouse, thank you for your kind words. The honor was totally unexpected. I want you to know that it is people like you that have helped make this a wonderful project and that without people like you maybe I wouldn't have continued in this project. I want to share the pictures and the Resolution with you, here: Press Releases.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, AnonEMouse. I'm starting to add some of those spiffy "This user is a member of..." boxes to my page, and can't locate one for the Porn Project. Is there one? Dekkappai18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably not. User:Joe Beaudoin Jr. apparently loves userboxes, and is a founding member, but I can't find one among the many on his page. If there were one, I would think he would have it. We could ask him, but I think that means there isn't one. "An opportunity for the interested student", I guess. But, um ... how shall I put this ... don't go too wild. :-). Especially with some of the images that Videmus Omnia has gotten to be released, the possibilities to really embarrass ourselves are definitely there. :-) --AnonEMouse(squeak)18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Opportunity to embarrass ourselves? I'm your man! ... But no, my tastes are probably too arcane, and my graphic skills too limited for me to be up to the job. I'll stick it on my page when someone else comes up with one though. Cheers! Dekkappai18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sander
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It was dead a while ago, I did not notice that it was replaced with new content to help catch her killer. Her blog and all other content in which she was in has been taken down.Metal Head22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:An Honourable Deception.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for the welcome back. And I'm still laughing. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
