Herostratus (talk | contribs) →Re: John Barrowman: my advice |
→Re: John Barrowman: not needed |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
::::You will see me there when I get home, at which point I will show how you removed verified material and failed to look at the cited sources while edit warring. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
::::You will see me there when I get home, at which point I will show how you removed verified material and failed to look at the cited sources while edit warring. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 20:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::Excellent, I shall await your reasoned arguments eagerly. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
:::::Excellent, I shall await your reasoned arguments eagerly. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John#top|talk]]) 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
Yikes, John, again with this stuff? We went over this re ''People'' and IIRC your position was rejected by a count of around 15-1. You need to be able to learn from stuff like that. Remember the Wikipedia is not what you would like it to be but what the community says it is. |
|||
On the merits, your position that the ''Daily Mail'' and similar rags can't be used for ''anything'' in a BLP is idiosyncratic. For reporting what a subject said in an interview, if its anodyne, and the ''Daily Mail'' has no incentive -- ideological, sensationalist, or other -- to misreport it, and the interview subject has no apparent motive to lie about it, and there's no reason to suspect interview subject doesn't have standing to know the material (rare for details of one's own biography), and there's no contradiction from another source or any other reason to suspect the material is suspect, then it's probably OK to use. |
|||
To my mind, not allowing this is as intellectually impressive as if your stance was "I've known several people named Harold, and they were all unreliable, and so on my watch no material written by a Harold is going to be used as a ref in a BLP, period" or "Publications that use sans-serif fonts are unserious and not to be trusted, and so on my watch no material written in a sans-serif font is going to be used as a ref in a BLP, period" or whatever. |
|||
But beyond the merits, even if you remain unconvinced, ''nobody agrees with you'' -- see the ''People'' RfC for confirmation -- and ''that's what matters''. To run another RfC as was done for ''People'', and then another one for the ''NY Daily News'' and so on and and, would be tedious and timewasting, and so rather than doing that people are going to look for alternatives. Although I don't know your work, I'm confident that you're a fine editor, and it would be shame to wreck your career on this Ahab-like obsession. |
|||
There are I'm sure plenty of ''actual'' problems with BLPs here. Maybe you should work at the BLP noticeboard which always needs hands. You want to work on a couple of difficult BLPs, take a look at my last two articles, [[Forest Tennant]] and [[Imprisonment of Roger Shuler]]. Two controversial people where it's hard to thread the needle and a review and advice would be welcome. Or work in some area away from BLPs for the sake of your own peace of mind, or something. But on this subject, relax and accept that you're an outlier and try to accept that in good grace, is my advice. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 05:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Middle Ages== |
==Middle Ages== |
Revision as of 06:54, 27 January 2014
A Note on threading:
Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply. Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.
I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to. please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy |
(From User:John/Pooh policy)
Notification of automated file description generationYour upload of File:Ardenwood farm-026.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page. This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC) ConcordeYou removed [1] from Concorde with the edit summary "Nothing here", but there seems to be a fairly extensive Website there. Please explain? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Heather MillsI just wanted to thank/congratulate you on the splendid work you are doing and have done on the Heather Mills article. Do please keep an eye on it though as, having contributed to it extensively myself, you may be shocked at the trolls who post vicious and vile things on it constantly. Manxwoman (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Erskine bridgeHi. I just wanted to say thanks for all your help and patience on the article. I could really do with picking up some tips from you. Thanks. Discolover18 (talk) 11:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Persistent vandalHi John. On the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role article, the user HesioneHushabye (talkpage here talk) has persisted in providing false information about the award, blatantly ignored the official bafta site that I provided which shows that Best British actress, and Best Foreign actress were two categories awarded up to 1968, and has created an award (best actress) that did not exist between 1952 to 1967. I restored the correct information that existed on the page prior to his arbitrary intervention. I assumed good faith edits at the beginning and explained the best actress article should provide the same correct information that the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role does. The fact the user has continued to vandalise the page has left to to call for admin intervention. Thanks.— Chie one (talk) 18:55, 10 Jan 2014 (UTC) The BAFTA page has been the same since I over-hauled it over a year ago and no one has had any issues with it. The category is clearly explained at the top of the page and the user above keeps changing my work instead of opening a discussion on the talk page. HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Truman Capote may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC) To be honest - I'm about to walk away from the article. Someone needs to do something before I just decide to unwatchlist the article and it starts deteriorating.THIS sort of pandering to nationalistic crap is why articles on big subjects don't get improved. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Fuck peer review, again
I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review. Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Re: John BarrowmanYour latest edits removed sourced and cited content and replaced it with citation needed tags. This is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Middle AgesI understand that you feel that it is unpleasant to mention another editor by name and repeat their unpleasant comments. But i fell that it is entirely necessary that other contributors realise that the editor of the Bulgarian matters did, in fact, make an appropriate approach (after having at first been led by Wikipedia's structure to believe that he could simply make changes). The response that he got informed him that the history of his country over the 500 year period was worthless, except for a couple of mentions of the country's name, in relation to the Byzantine Empire. He was told that the article gave this empire precisely as much value as it was worth. This is a humiliating and insulting manner in which to treat an editor. Your message is the second one that I have received telling me that my manner towards the apparent controller of content in the article has been unpleasant.
What I perceive is an overwhelming imbalance. It is an imbalance both in the text of the article and in the attitudes of those who are maintaining it. When the problems of extraordinary insularity have been righted, and the humiliation of Sumatro appropriately dealt with, then you won't have any further problem with me on this issue. Can I suggest that instead of fussing about my style and manner towards a person who really has ben very insulting towards a would-be contributor, you concern yourself with the evidence posed by the two maps and the one-liner about the duration and extent of the First Bulgarian Empire? As I have warned before, ignoring and side stepping this type of evidence when it is brought up on the talk page makes the credibility of Wikipedia and its editors look like a joke. Something very similar happened over that 20th-century reproduction helmet. It is almost beyond my comprehension that, when the issue was first raised, (many months before it came to my attention) the editors did not immediately recognise the problem and act upon the alert. It took thousands of words and the consensus of six named and another six unnamed editors to get the change. Note that the 20th-century helmet is still in place as the icon for the Category:Middle Ages, even though it has been removed from the article itself, indicating that although the controllers gave way, a little, they have failed to comprehend the message: "A 20th-century reproduction object cannot represent the Middle Ages". IMO, Sumatro's initial appeal to Wikipedia should have been sufficient to alert the regular editors to the fact that there was a whole 'empire lasting several hundred years that had largely slipped the attentions of Western European historians, and had entirely bypassed the writers of the article. His appeal should have prompted interest, excitement even. It certainly should have prompted action. Instead, he received a verbal slap in the face, here paraphrased as "Your country's history of conquest, empire and culture is worth two nebulous mentions in passing and nothing more. Nothing further needs to be said. The word "empire" does not need to be even hinted at". Can't you do something about this, other than complaining that you don't like my manner? Taking into account the Reproduction Helmet debacle, tell me, will you, what sort of manner will get action on that page? Asking politely and reasonably has been tried by Sumatro. Putting forward as much evidence as he has, has been tried by Sumatro. Adding a few lines summarising the history of the First Bulgarian Empire has been tried, by me. (NOTE: about three lines. 3 lines, not 33 or 103 lines) This has been reduced to less than half and doesn't mention the word "Empire". Asking nicely, demanding, pleading, giving supporting evidence, complaining, accusing people of prejudice, hosing down such accusations, presenting the evidence of a negative and inappropriate treatment of a contributor, presenting thousands of words in support of the additional content, summarising the thousands of words, presenting the irrefutable evidence of the two maps and the one-liner and indicating, once again, that the editor who politely proposed an addition to the article, was, in fact, very badly treated........ These things have all been tried, and all that happens is that the person seeking to alert Wikipedia editors that their article is one-sided cops abuse, and the person who defends him is informed that their actions in doing so are unproductive. Go back and look at the two maps and the one-liner. Together, they tell you that the history of the Bulgarian Empire in the Middle Ages needs more coverage. This is the whole point of this tedious stupid argument. It is something about which there should never have been any argument whatsoever. Sumatro's initial message (like the initial message about the 20th-century reproduction helmet) sounded an alert to which every editor of the page should have paid attention. The histories of the two Bulgarian Empires don't require a long section, but do require at least two precisely-written statements that name the most powerful rulers under which these two empires and a widespread culture existed. Their relationship with the Byzantines is significant and should be mentioned, but in the context of Bulgaria, not exclusively in the context of the Byzantines. Altogether, 6-8 (widescreen) lines divided into two statements in different sections could probably summarise it adequately. My cut-down addition of one and a bit lines does not. Until this happens, do you really expect me to become increasingly courteous, or increasingly frustrated and angry? Let me say again :When the problems brought on by insularity have been dealt with, and the humiliation of Sumatro has been righted, then you won't have any further problem with me on this issue. |