→Ettinger: Feminism in France |
TreasuryTag (talk | contribs) →WT:WHO: new section |
||
Line 817: | Line 817: | ||
Hi Phil yes initially and truthfully I was somewhat surprised by all the places Ettinger appears also. My expertise is mostly the fine arts. That said - I've been doing some deep searching - and I saw a picture with Giselda Pollock with her arm around Ettinger, I saw pretty much links to most of the stuff she claims. Pictures of Lyotard taken by her, had to be in the 90s. I removed her from a few obvious places where she is in over her head, but I.ve returned her largely to where it makes sense that she's had input. You gotta just trust your own judgment. I'm trusting my judgment as well. So far you have done a spectacular job. As to [[Feminism in France]] she lives and works there, and has for from what I can tell most of her life.....That's one that common sense says she belongs. [[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
Hi Phil yes initially and truthfully I was somewhat surprised by all the places Ettinger appears also. My expertise is mostly the fine arts. That said - I've been doing some deep searching - and I saw a picture with Giselda Pollock with her arm around Ettinger, I saw pretty much links to most of the stuff she claims. Pictures of Lyotard taken by her, had to be in the 90s. I removed her from a few obvious places where she is in over her head, but I.ve returned her largely to where it makes sense that she's had input. You gotta just trust your own judgment. I'm trusting my judgment as well. So far you have done a spectacular job. As to [[Feminism in France]] she lives and works there, and has for from what I can tell most of her life.....That's one that common sense says she belongs. [[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
== [[WT:WHO]] == |
|||
Hi; a couple of points about your recent revert. Firstly, I was under the impression that the [[WP:RBK|rollback feature]] was exclusively provided for the reversion of "blatantly unproductive edits". Since I quoted two policies in my edit, in a way that was not [[WP:POINT|merely Wikilawyering and disruptive]], it would have been courteous to discuss or at least provide an edit-summary. |
|||
Now onto the material itself: I don't understand how that material can be allowed to stay given the fact that discussions about ''Doctor Who'', rather than about ''Doctor Who'' *articles*, are [[WP:FORUM|expressly forbidden]], and that they [[WP:TALK|are "subject to removal"]]. The discussion certainly serves no purpose by staying there, and merely clogs up the page and, eventually, archives - it's not necessary. Rather than reverting immediately, please discuss, or take this for a [[WP:3O]] or to [[WP:VPP]] or to [[WP:AN]] or to [[WP:ANI]] or to [[WP:RFC]] or to [[WP:RFAR]] - these are all more appropriate venues for a dispute than the rollback button. Thanks. <font size="3" color="#262CA5">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]]§[[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢</font> 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:11, 30 August 2008
Hello.
I'm a newbie...
and i am curious to know as of how things work here i would aprreciate it if you showed how things worked here?
Shor7es7 s7raw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shor7es7 S7raw (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's a bit of a broad question - our policies are at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Are there specific things you're wondering about? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging
Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Phil, User:Cast has put a lot of work into this and I think it should be nominated for featured but he wants to run it through peer review first. Can you have a look at it and offer some comments please? Thanks, Hiding T 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Merciless review wanted
Hey, since you’ve done so much on List of Halo characters (or, the list once known as Characters in the Halo series, List of Characters in the Halo series, and List of Characters in Halo…) I was wondering if you could pop by and tell us how it’s coming along. Thanks, David Fuchs (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the drop-in, we'll keep truckin'! David Fuchs (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You’re right
True, sorry. --Van helsing (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Blanking RFAR threads
Do not do that as an involved participant. Doing it again would be seen as blanking vandalism. Lawrence Cohen 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Phil, would you change your removals to strikethroughs, please? DurovaCharge! 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not even touching that one again at this point. Do what you want with it. I'm disgusted at the insistence of people on maintaining a thread that it is clear everybody has thought better of. No wonder there's such a poisonous atmosphere surrounding this case. Everybody is far more interested in humiliating the perceived opposition than in actual progress. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's full protected now. I agree we should be doing more to mend fences and build bridges. I wonder if there's something that could be done to improve this situation along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which grew out of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles case. DurovaCharge! 03:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not even touching that one again at this point. Do what you want with it. I'm disgusted at the insistence of people on maintaining a thread that it is clear everybody has thought better of. No wonder there's such a poisonous atmosphere surrounding this case. Everybody is far more interested in humiliating the perceived opposition than in actual progress. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On 17 January, following a series of edits to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision, User:FloNight protected the page and added the following in an edit summary: "I protected the page from all editing until the case is closed or edits all agree to make all productive comments about the proposed ruling and not other editors". Flonight has not left any further messages as yet, so I am posting this message to all those who edited the page in this period, and asking them to consider signing this section at Flonight's talk page indicating that they will abide by this request. Hopefully this will help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision. Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Template:Watchlist-notice
Hi, is there a guideline for inclusion of a notice on watchlist? That RFC message is perfectly fine, don't you think the community should be notified of an important event that may have significant impact afterwards? Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- We could discuss on Template talk:Watchlist-notice, if you are interested. Regards, - PeaceNT (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Prod notice
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Sandman Companion, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}}
to the top of The Sandman Companion. 152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I note that the template above requests that you comment on the article's talk page why you removed, and that to date you have not done so. However, in your edit summary, you note that this is from the "same publisher as the comics." Unless you're proposing that the Wikipedia:Notability (books) be changed in a fairly drastic manner that would allow everything by a particular publishing house to become notable automatically, you've not satisfied the concern raised in the now-removed prod statement.
If this is a work in progress, why not consider creating it in user-space instead of leaving it half-done in mainspace?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)- If you are sincerely suggesting that consensus does not exist to keep books from major publishers, feel free to AfD the article and see if it gathers consensus there. I can't imagine that it will, however. The article is a stub - I was filling in requested articles with stubs I could do more or less from the top of my head, because that's a productive thing to do. I left it in its current state because somebody can expand it, but the basic information is there. But it is not "half-finished" in any meaningful sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's clearly not even half finished: It doesn't tell us why it's improtant, or why anyone should care. And the current accepted at practice Wikipedia:Notability (books) doesn't match what you're describing. It's a shame if you're suggesting I use AfD as {{cleanup}} because you aren't willing to make the effort to create an article with enough information to justify its own existance. I note that a stub is "a few sentences of text." This article is two.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)- The article describes the book and gives pertinent information about it. There is certainly lots to be added to the article, but the article clearly flags the book's importance. I've added another sentence in case this is unclear to somebody unfamiliar with the comic, but I am hard pressed to believe that the article requires anything more to function as a preliminary stub, or that anybody looking at the article could have serious doubts about the appropriateness of its subject matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's clearly not even half finished: It doesn't tell us why it's improtant, or why anyone should care. And the current accepted at practice Wikipedia:Notability (books) doesn't match what you're describing. It's a shame if you're suggesting I use AfD as {{cleanup}} because you aren't willing to make the effort to create an article with enough information to justify its own existance. I note that a stub is "a few sentences of text." This article is two.
- If you are sincerely suggesting that consensus does not exist to keep books from major publishers, feel free to AfD the article and see if it gathers consensus there. I can't imagine that it will, however. The article is a stub - I was filling in requested articles with stubs I could do more or less from the top of my head, because that's a productive thing to do. I left it in its current state because somebody can expand it, but the basic information is there. But it is not "half-finished" in any meaningful sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Help with Fair Use Rationale
Phil - I've been notified that an album art image I uploaded some time ago has insufficient fair use rationale. At the time I uploaded it, I used the standard fair use boilerplate template, {{Non-free album cover}}. I am now told that I must supplement this with {{Non-free use rationale}}. Besides a note of the specific article the image was intended for, and an affirmation that it is a low resolution, complete copy of a piece of album art, I'm not sure what else to state, or how strong a case I need to make. Can you advise?
Also, when and for what reason was this new policy settled on? It seems prohibitively difficult and inherently non-inclusionist. Thanks, --Peter Farago (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Use of {{prod}}
You have suggested several templates on Templates for Deletion should be "Prodded", i.e. go through the WP:Proposed deletion process. {{prod}} can only be used for Articles, User pages, and User talk pages, per the first paragraph of WP:PROD. Also, once an article has been nominated for deletion through WP:AFD (for Articles) or Miscellany for Deletion (for User pages and User talk pages), or if an article has previously been "Prodded", it is forever ineligible for {{prod}} per Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#How_it_works. Articles can be taken to the appropriate Deletion Discussion after an unsuccessful prod, but they may never go the other way. I think what you mean to suggest is that it should be Speedy Deleted, in which case you should name the appropriate criteria. There are general criteria as well as namespace specific criteria (such as WP:CSD#T3 for templates). If a speedy deletion criterion applies, an admin may decide that the discussion should be closed early and the page deleted (on the other hand, an admin may decide to just let the period run).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
SupermanBatman8.jpg
Kara Zor-El appears on the cover. This is the first image of the modern version of Kara Zor-El as she appears in Superman/Batman #8. The cover is notable as the characters modern debut.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I simply don't see a reason to remove it. Shrouded or not, it does illustrate Kara Zor-El and its the same illustration used for the interior of the comic book. perhaps a better caption would be more appropriate- "Kara Zor-El's modern age debut as she appears on the cover of Superman/Batman 8" etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk • contribs) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
IAR
I saw that you removed the section I added to IAR. I don't know what you mean about "misuse" in your edit summary - IAR is not a rule, and can't be misued. IAR is the principle that you in general one should ignore the written rules and go about one's business. As I interact with other people, I'm becoming more convinced of the need for some explanation on the policy page. The point of policy documents is to document the way we do things - except the IAR page, which is cryptic to the point where, apparently, it is being misunderstood. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A Beautiful Sunset
I see you've deleted the article for the Buffy comic "A Beautiful Sunset" yet again. I can't say I find your rational for this action particularly convincing. There was no "crystal balling" in the article; all information was referenced. You also mention about not having articles for individual issues of comics. Yet there are other individual Buffy comics have articles concerning them. The original deletion vote was taken several months ago; part of the reasoning behind the deletion being that the comic's release was far off. Since it is being released within the next four days that line of reasoning is hardly valid anymore. --Cyclonius (talk) 22:38, 03 February 2008 (UTC)
Mediawiki security
Hi Phil. I noticed this post. It got me thinking. I think an earlier post by you pointed out that this incident shows one very damaging thing admins can do with their tools. I've heard various dark mutterings about very bad things rogue admins could do. Is that one of them, or is the Mediawiki stuff more concerning? Someone also mentioned sitewide css. But I'm guessing most of the actions to the latter two are easily reversible. It is the disentangling of histories that seems the really difficult thing to undo (though it should be spotted quickly and desysopping would follow). More generally though, as the project lasts longer and gets bigger, these loopholes will get discovered, and, worse, someone with real knowledge of the system (ie. Mediawiki) will become so disgruntled that they will do some damage. I don't know what can be done about that, but just wanted to mention it to someone. Carcharoth (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability
- Double post. This one and the one above...
The other thing is about fiction and notability, or rather just notability in general. I read the thread you started on that (about WP:N rising to the level of WP:V), and I remembered a thought I've had several times. Possibly too paranoid, but I've sometimes thought that it is possible that certain groups, annoyed that their "non-notable" articles got deleted, have decided that if theirs were deleted, then others will go with it, and are engaged in a massive gaming of the system by relentlessly pushing the notability bar higher and higher and then aiming at various areas of surviving "fancruft". Am I being too paranoid or is that a possibility? I think Wikipedia is susceptible to meta-gaming in this way - and it is something that needs to be guarded against. Somehow. Anyway, as above, just throwing the thought out there. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very nice analysis at the WikiProject Comics talk page. Doczilla (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know I have certainly not always agreed with you, and I know I opposed your ArbCom candidacy. But when I said you were "sometimes brilliant", it is that kind of contribution I was referring to. A wise, and well-thought through challenge to a "truth" which can be in need of some shaking-up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Groupthink
Using another login to get around 3RR might be a very bad idea Phil. --Basique (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Especially with this still out there Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Phil Sandifer. --Basique (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was just an observation, with no opinion whatsoever. I expressed no opinion. I had no opinion. You're a great editor and I would hate to discover something like that to be true. In fact, had you not been such a strong editor whose work I've thought so well of (see my remark higher on this page from less than two weeks ago regarding a great analysis you'd made), I probably wouldn't even have taken an interest. Honestly, I made the observation only to see if Basique wanted to discuss it more, but then a very long time passed before Basique replied. I didn't want to put it in the form of a question because a question calls for discussion that might not need to occur. I wanted to leave Basique room to let it go if Basique so chose or to discuss it more if that was where Basique would like to head with it anyway. So I made the one matter of fact observation that remains an observation regardless of whether it means puppetry or not. That was some time ago but nobody responded back then.
- There is one other reason for putting it in the form of an observation rather than a question, but that has to do with something that is not directly about you. I'd gladly tell you by email but not in public forum. Doczilla (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just now noticed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Phil Sandifer. (Yes, it's right above my remarks, but I didn't notice it earlier (I mean notice it today, not about noticing it over a month ago). I was focused on relations with you, not B.) So I certainly understand why this whole issue is suddenly such a serious concern to you.
- My wife just asked why I looked amused. It was because the two remaining oppose votes made me think, "Well, now I don't have to worry about whether or not my upcoming answer to a question is going to make someone cast the first oppose vote and spoil my 100% support rate." As weird as that sounds, the thought obviously amused me enough to show on my face from across the room. Doczilla (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very seriously, though, there is one reason I would really like to tell you via email if possible. Doczilla (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Real life beckoned, but now I'm back at the computer. Before or while reading my message when you get it, you might want to compare these[1][2] to [[3]] for reference. Doczilla (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very seriously, though, there is one reason I would really like to tell you via email if possible. Doczilla (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Doczilla's RfA
Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!"
Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. |
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations
Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations
The poject was a great idea, but as noone showing interst in the project, even you, the creator of the project have not edited the project page for a long time. So I am nominating it for deletion because it unnecessarily taking space in wikipedia. However I will like to see the project restarted, so you can restart the project, that will be very good. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Comics & Notability
Hi Phil - following your invitation on the Comix Scholars Mailinglist, I'd like to ask you to explain me something about Wikipedia: I'm working on notability guidelines for articles on comics in the German WP, and I noticed that the English guidelines for comics (I guess that would be WP:Notability (fiction)) are very vague. So how exactly do they work? Are there more (formal or informal) notability guidelines for comics somewhere that are more detailed? E.g. is there a sales figure threshold? What are the main arguments about the notability of comics? I know that the English WP is not as strict about notability as the German, but I guess there must be some sort of restriction. --Martin de la Iglesia (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Injunction
Would you please reconsider the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mayfair? The way we have been handling these is to add Template:FICTWARN to the discussion page and relist the discussion whenever the 5 days expire. There is a tracking category for these discussions, so any decided action by ARBCOM can be manageably acomplished, or the template can be changed to describe the outcome of the injunction. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mayfair
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mayfair. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JERRY talk contribs 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The project is a great idea. Can you restart the project. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have restarted the project. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Happy thoughts
I have nominated Happy thoughts, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy thoughts. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Wold Newton character lists in three places
Phil Sandifer...I was doing a bit of clean-up of my subpages, and after doing a search I found two others had a subpage for Wold Newton characters. Why don't we just merge them into one to keep this from fragmenting? You can use my space if you wish, since it looks like yours has gotten some criticism. It would take a while to make sure that there aren't any duplicates, but it can be done. Just let me know on this talk page what you want to do. The list of the three Wold Newton character lists are below. - LA @ 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:Lady Aleena/Wold Newton
- User:Piecraft/Wold Newtonverse characters
- User:Phil Sandifer/Wold Newton
- You are hereby invited to www.wold.wikidot.com -- password is "Doc is John C.'s cousin" -- --24.176.10.125 (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (NOT a random post...)
Fashionable Nonsense
I've undone your reversion of my {citequote} additions to Fashionable Nonsense. Yes, the quotes are from the book, but they need page number citations, IMO, since they are almost all somewhat controversial statements that really should be cited in order to facilitate verification by anyone interested to do so. I plan to cite them myself when I get the chance, assuming someone else doesn't do it first. - dcljr (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. My copy of the book got recalled at the library, so I don't currently have one handy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}}
to the top of Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust. Sancho 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Six Feet Under
What to put at Six Feet Under was discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Redirect question. Around 500 links were changed [4] from Six Feet Under to Six Feet Under (TV series) to prepare a disambiguation page. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Question about a subpage
Is this page deleteable per this MfD or is it one of the pages kept "for historical value"? Though it doesn't contain any vandalism, on the surface it seems to pose a problem vis-a-vis WP:NOT#FORUM. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello? :) Black Falcon (Talk) 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Six Feet Under Question
This is just a question: Why do you use Six Feet Under page as a disambiguation page? Schould not a disambiguation page have "...(disambiguation)" in it's name? Lykantrop (Talk) 13:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. The page history of Six feet under shows that I linked to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions when I moved it [5] from Six Feet Under (disambiguation) to Six Feet Under. Phil Sandifer later moved it to Six feet under. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is what I wanted to learn...--Lykantrop (Talk) 06:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
PVP
I'm curious - would you please explain your reasoning for re-rating PVP from TOP to High? There should be at least one Webcomic of top importance in the Comics list, and by any stretch of the imagination, PVP Online is that comic. Please see my reasoning in the discussion Talk:PVP Top Importance? on the talk page; I feel your edit is misplaced, and you may only be considering "print" comics in your judgement, wheras webcomics are considered a significant part of the comics industry in this day and age. I look forward to hearing your input on this issue, either here, my talk page, or in the article discussion section. I am dissapointed though that you did not discuss your change first when there is an already existing discussion on the issue. Timmccloud (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
RfC
I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. If you'd like to participate in drafting it, please feel free. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Twit comment on me at MFD
Is a direct personal attack. Continuing personal attacks could lead to your being blocked. Please stop. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- "You are being a disruptive twit. Please stop or accept our 24 hour all expenses paid vacation to somewhere other than Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)" is a disruptive comment, especially when directed at a fellow
administratoreditor in good standing in a heated discussion. I suggest you refrain from such remarks, if at all possible... you may well find the shoe on the other foot after a discussion at AN/I if you repeatedly use this sort of approach. Better yet, strike the comment in the original discussion to show good faith. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil.
Thanks Phil. If you check out the archived discussion on the page, Hari e-mailed wikipedia (on my advice) to say it was a public domain image and anyone can use it. It's used by the BBC and Channel Four and all sorts without a copyright tag because it's public domain.
I just e-mailed Johann to suggest he sends permission again to wiki[edia to the permissions e-mail to clear this up! David r from meth productions (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
accidentally marked vandalism
I marked your edit as vandalism by accident, but there is no reason why I wouldn't use twinkle and I still would have reverted it, it was only the vandalism mark that was accidental. It's a properly sourced piece of info. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- replied here. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Changed the wording making it considerably more neutral. How's that? -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Made it even more neutral, put the Jesus thing as just a sentence in the Controversies section instead of it's own subheading, and the kicked out of Catholic school thing was already mentioned and referenced. How's that? -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome. :) -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Made it even more neutral, put the Jesus thing as just a sentence in the Controversies section instead of it's own subheading, and the kicked out of Catholic school thing was already mentioned and referenced. How's that? -Mike Payne (T • C) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Changed the wording making it considerably more neutral. How's that? -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
One of the Foundation issues
Hi Phil:
This question arises out of the discussion in BLP Talk, but I thought I would ask you here as it's a bit of a sideline.
One of the Foundation principles is "Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering".
Why does the Foundation have this principle? Is it because
a) having to register is regarded as a significant hurdle which stands in people's way?
b) requiring people to register does not provide any benefit to Wikipedia?
c) other?
Maybe there's somewhere you can refer me to where this is discussed.
Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll seek an answer elsewhere. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- In case you're interested, the Reference Desk told me about a concise answer to my question.
- "One summary is expressed at Village Pump/Perennial Proposals." Wanderer57 (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
An example for No Original Research discussion
I wonder if the discussion on what the No Original Research dictum means or should mean could be clarified by considering a specific example that i am familiar with, namely the summarizing of information in lists of U.S. National Historic Landmarks. I have felt that I have been doing original research in that no one has ever categorized, tallied, and summarized as I am doing, in passages such as in List of National Historic Landmarks in New York#Overview. There are 256 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in New York which I and others have written up, based on sources specific to each of the 256 places, but without any general overviews of the set as a whole being available. Describing the list of them as a group, as in the intro and overview section of the list-article requires synthesis that is creative and original, I believe. For example, I state that "Notable architects whose work is represented in the NHLs of the state include: Alexander Jackson Davis (7 sites),[40] Andrew Jackson Downing (2),[41] William West Durant (2),[42] Leopold Eidlitz (2),[43] Cass Gilbert (2),[44] Henry J. Hardenbergh (2),[45] Raymond Hood (3),[46] Philip Hooker (2),[47] Minard Lafever (6),[48] John McComb Jr. (3),[49] Frederick Law Olmsted (3),[50] Isaac G. Perry (2),[51] George B. Post (3),[52] James Renwick, Jr. (4),[53] Henry Hobson Richardson (2),[54] Louis Sullivan (2),[55] Richard Upjohn (6),[56] Calvert Vaux (6),[57] and Frederick Clarke Withers (2).[58]" (where [40]-[58] indicate footnotes that enumerate the sites.
I would put it forward in the Talk page, but I am not sure it is a proper illustration or not. I have thought that I was performing original research that is forbidden by the explicit policy, but that I feel is okay to do in practice (because I go to great lengths to make the accuracy of the summaries obvious). This could serve as an example in the current discussion, if it is evident enough that the summarizing is counter to explicit policy. It seems to me that it is counter to the nutshell statement "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources", because there is no source anywhere that makes summaries like these I am making. While staying entirely factual, I may get around to making more potentially politically charged summaries too, like "there are __ Presbyterian churches, __ Episcopal churches, and ___ synagogues, but no Islamic mosques that are NHLs in the U.S." However, I am not sure this is a good example, as perhaps people will not agree that this violates the letter of the current NOR policy.
Do you think this example is something that would be prohibited by the current policy but allowed by your amendments? Let me know what you think. doncram (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Brainstorming
You've got me thinking with your last reply at WT:NOR. Perhaps the problem is that the wiki has grown large enough that there really is no longer a one-size fits all approach that works correctly across all subjects. This situation may also be a consequence of the rules becoming so "wordified". Rough solutions ideas: Pare down the rules so they are general enough, while retaining the essential impact of the principle they are about, that they can (once again) apply across all domains. If that fails to work entirely, or problems arise, create a limited set of short general subject guidelines. Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look at Wikipedia:The rules are principles and Wikipedia:Content policy in a nutshell. Please let me know what you think. Vassyana (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. If it isn't clear from reading a rule why we have such a rule, it's a bad rule. All of our rules should on expressing the underlying principle -- the reason for having it, the idea behind it -- with only a modicum of specifics. Maybe we could even formally segregate policies from guidelines along those lines.--Father Goose (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- You both may be interested in User:Vassyana/insanity. :) Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you
I believe People magazine that sites direct quotes, as well as IMDB to be very credible news sources. A public divorece stated with on file legal documents and direct qoutes from an actress about her personal life seem to be very credible to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowers362 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you are wrong about many of the assertions you've made in policy discussions. As far as I can tell, you either don't understand our core policies, or you simply don't agree with them. In general, I do agree with them. Therefore I disagree with you. The fact that I disagree with you is not the same as "ignoring you". I've read your comments and I've responded as I felt appropriate. I feel no obligation to respond to every post you make - it's ok with me if you get in the last word in a particular thread. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- If that is, in fact, as far as you can tell, then you cannot tell very far at all. You have, in fact, not responded to most of my arguments. Truth be told, you've spent more time braying about how I talk too much or how I don't post things to your preferred page than you have actually looking at what I've said and responding to it. In that regard, it's clear that you feel no obligation to respond to every post I make - you've barely responded to a single thing I've said. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ouch
Wow, I never realize that. Fix coming pronto. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Can't figure out where to put it. Help? 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
TT
Thanks for the heads-up. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
NOR discussion
I would like to invite you and CBM to discuss the matter from WT:NOR further at User talk:Vassyana#NOR discussion. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- On a related note, how would you improve Wikipedia:These are not original research? Feel free to improve away if you feel the urge. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
2004 presidential election
There is some new activity at [6] if you are still interested in this subject. Bonewah (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
hasty
I presume the assertion that he and his mother were alienated was what prompted this excision of yours? I think you were overly hasty to excise the information about his parents identity. Geo Swan (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you analyzed WP:DEL ?
I have noted you seem to be very good at sifting through discussions and edit histories to find origins of changes. Have you by chance done that yet for WP:DEL to find the origin of the inclusion of WP:N into that policy? Was it there when WP:DEL was elevated to policy and if so did it generate any conflict from the start? Also, what was the wording on WP:N at the time it was referenced into WP:DEL? -- Low Sea (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow! That is some amazing history. Minor inadvertent change resulting in enormous consequence, kind of remind me of the infamous "corporations are persons" error. I am going to put the strategic part of my mind to work to see if I can find a succinct argument for changing WP:DEL back to its original intentions on the grounds it never was supposed to be that way (hmmm... do I smell the repeatedly bruised flesh of a deceased equine ?). If needed do I have your OK to reference the analysis you did or perhaps even include it (with attribution of course) as a big part of a larger WP essay for general discussion ? This may be a while, as IRL I have a lot of stuff heading my way right now. -- Low Sea (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your thoughts on Ayers are always welcome
no worries It is me i think (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Views on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.22Unsourced_or_poorly_sourced.22 are also welcome.Bdell555 (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Care to look at another one ?
Thank you again for your analysis of the WP:DEL history. I know I am walking dangerously close to abusing our barely existant wiki-friendship but you are so good at analyzing policy histories I am going to ask anyways... I am interested in the origin of speedy deletion and more importantly the rapid expansion of WP:CSD. I think there may be a very strong argument for drastically reducing what criteria are appropriate for speedy deletion and thus helping fledgling articles stand a better chance growing to maturity. If you feel this is an effort you could support I would certainly appreciate the help. -- Low Sea (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OTRS question at Frieda Harris article
Hi Phil, I gather that you are an OTRS volunteer... so I hope you can assist me. My attention was drawn to the above article, and I am not sure how to deal with the situation... the article is all but a direct cut and paste job from this website. On the talk page, someone posted an email from the website's owner, granting permission to copy the material... dated Sept. 4, 2005. Unfortunately it does not look as if there is an OTRS ticket number for it (apparently the rules were different back when the permission was granted, and numbers were not needed... or something to that effect... see: WT:Verifiability#Frieda Harris for more background on that).
I have several questions... first, is there any record of this permission at OTRS? If there is a record, what does that mean as far as how much cutting and pasting from the source webpage is appropriate? If there isn't a record, are we dealing with a deletion situation? Should we flag it for copyvio? etc. I want to assume good faith... and accept that permission was granted... but I am unhappy with the idea of Wikipedia simply copying some other website's material... especially when I am not even sure if the source webpage is a reliable source by wikipeida's standards.
Some guidance would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Blackhawk66 (copied from userpage)
Just saw your comment on my talk page about removing my material from the Batplane and Batmobile pages. I was indeed the author of the material that I added, as I am the owner of the website from which it was taken. Sorry I didn't know how to identify it as such. I think Wikipedia is the worse off for it having been removed (especially the Batplane page which is just pitiful now) but the information is still available on my site so I guess I won't worry about it. I only occasionally visit Wikipedia so I didn't see your comments on my talk page until well after the changes had been made (right now, as a matter of fact). Obviously, I'm not a suitable editor for Wikipedia since I don't monitor my edits regularly. Oh, I also resent your immediate assumption of dishonesty on my part. That was not justified. Attitudes like yours, and all the annoying bots, have made my participation in Wikipedia an annoyance I can do without.Blackhawk66 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
LA's message above, please respond
My message is up a bit. - LA @ 08:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Edson Elcock
Hi, I saw you deleted Edson Elcock a while ago. He's now played at a fully professional level and is therefore notable under WP:BIO guidelines. Could you restore the article? --Balerion (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you start it yourself? Much better a new article than a restored one given his notability is so recent. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
TUATW comment
Hi; the comment you re-added wasn't the one which was mentioned in the thread on my talkpage, so perhaps you made a mistake: in fact, it was unequivicoally a FORUM violation (it complained that the episode confirmed to be comedic was not funny - this is personal opinion on the article's subject and could not lead to an improvement in the article) unlike the one I had a complaint about which was borderline, I'll admit. I've therefore undone your edit. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought you might have done the wrong ones. This wasn't geared at improving the article, and could never lead to it, it's just a Wikipedia Review-type complaint about policy. This isn't helpful as it's simply his/her personal opinion that City of Death was humourous (I thought it wasn't, myself), and couldn't lead to the article being improved. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Outis does indeed explain the City of Death comment persuasively, but irrationally. The article did not say it was the first comic episode of "Who"; it said that it was the first intentionally comically scripted episode. Thus individual people finding other episodes funny (I find "World War Three" funny) bears no relation to it. Good-faith I grant you, but still a direct violation of the text of WP:FORUM. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Jane
Hi; per WP:BLP such information must be sourced clearly. I have actually looked for reliable sources and have found none linking them to that episode - there is one for Sarah being in the series, but other than that, nowt. —TreasuryTag—t | c 13:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The source you listed did not mention the episode you placed it in, so it's not enough. I did mention this above - and did put in some work rather than just blind reverting. The source must mention EPISODE 13 if that's what you want to add to the article. Sorry. —TreasuryTag—t | c 08:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have posted further input on the article's talkpage - also note that you nearly went over the 3RR, it's much better to discuss these things first. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
train our mobs
You said: "The problem should be understood as a problem of social engineering - how do we train our mobs to behave usefully? Policy should be understood as the increasingly failed attempt to train our mobs via rigid control and stark delineation of what they can and can't do. It hasn't worked."
I agree. I was thinking that our "forever september" problem might best be dealt with by a Foundation sponsored "Our Values" training course with a graduation leveling up experience as carrot. Those who don't care to level up generally already share our core values. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
consensus?
? So there's no need any longer to demonstrate any notability? And bad things that spread around are suddenly consensus instead of idiocy? dorftrottel (talk) 04:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Lorenzo's Oil
I'm really just confused about the whole thing, so if you want to make those changes, feel free to do so. The way it was before appeared to be even more confusing since people were leaving talk messages on the wrong pages. But if that's the convention, I'm fine with that. - Maximusveritas (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you are not a newbie. :)
But if you notice at the top of each page, there are a series of tabs. The left tab is typically marked "article" (or similar depending on the page being viewed - here it is "user page"). To the right of that tab is typically "discussion". The discussion section at EverQuest contains a good bit of information. You may find it useful. I know I would find it useful if you would join.
Your comment about the origin of the idea for EQ is not germane to the discussion of which company was responsible for EverQuest, nor who oversaw the design and development.
While neither the EQ page nor your talk page are really the right place to discuss the difference between "The original design is credited to Brad McQuaid, Steve Clover, and Bill Trost." and "From John Smedley's initial concept in 1996, throughout various corporate restructurings, Sony has directly or indirectly been responsible for, and John Smedley has guided, the development of EverQuest." SMED's concept was for a Sony MMORPG. Brad McQuaid was the primary creative force behind the game/world that became "EverQuest". The difference between an artist/designer and someone who oversees a development corporation/division/department/etc. may not be immediately apparent, but is very important.
I will duplicate the EQ portion of this onto the discussion section. Please join in. We really can pingpong all day. I don't mind.
Sinneed (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Request for comment
You'll see that we made an option 8, as you'd specified, Phil, on the (Obama bio Talk page; and you're invited to help specify what degree of "inclusivity" with regard to Dr. Ayers' former "career" you'd believe most appropriate in it. — Justmeherenow ( ) 00:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus-building discussion of the options where I comment on your proposal. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Noroton (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Request for your opinion
Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article | ||
Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language
|
Request for your help
Hi Phil, I've asked for a third opinion twice but the user in question does not appear to listen to neither my requests or those who give third opinions. Furthermore the user creates a new false allegation with each reply. The user in question is Dgtsyb and the page in question is here Talk:Signaling System 7#third_opinion, thanks for your time. Leedryburgh (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:T-Mobile Team Time Trial.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:T-Mobile Team Time Trial.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Megapixie (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have re-tagged the image. It is a non-essential non-free image. It fails to be transformative in any way, and is thus not fair use under law. The most telling thing is that the rationale seems to focus more on its artistic qualities rather than anything else - it doesn't really convey any information not already available in the article - it's just a nice photograph and as a result it doesn't meet criteria 8 of WP:FU. Let me ask you a question - are you sure the photograph wasn't licensed from a commercial photographer by the website ? Megapixie (talk) 07:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for unprotecting The Stolen Earth but I think you did too much. Could you maybe semi-protect it, so we don't have to deal with the usual unsourced stuff, IPs usually add in the week before an episode? --SoWhy Talk 15:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Request for Comment
Hello Phil Sandifer. You will want to add your thoughts at the conversation that I have started here [7]. Please understand that I will be okay with whatever the final decision is. I just wanted to have more thoughts on this than just yours and mine. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 23:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
AFD
I read your recent contribution with interest. I very much support your point but such policy discussions seem unproductive, as we see at WP:FICTION. Please take some time to patrol the front line too as this is where such matters are actually resolved. For example, I am currently defending the articles Minnesota Fats, List of Fictional Pandas and Fictional history of Wonder Woman from crass nominations which all suppose that no-one might actually want to read this content. These all seem to be of interest to you but you have not commented on any of them.
My habit is to check the bookmark Wikipedia:Deletion today regularly. This is backed up by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday which may be needed for the late-night break between the days. The numbers of articles nominated for deletion is not so large that one can't scan them all for topics of interest. And the numbers of participating editors is so small that a single comment can make a decisive difference. Especially such an eloquent comment as you made just now.
Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Aye. I have more to say than I can put to words, but it is always a joy to see a push for reasoned examination of the basis of the dispute and the benefits of the readers. Mind if I steal your "train our mobs" quote as well? Thanks. Truly, building this place was easy in comparison to maintaining it... but we've done impossible things already in creating Wikipedia, so I think we're entitled to a little optimism. :P
The usefulness experiment on your talk page is particularly interesting and has that invigorating tang of an invention that's so simple and obvious that it had escaped everyone else. I'll be following it with great interest... so no pressure. --Kizor 17:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Steal away. I'm pretty sure I released the quote under the GFDL. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Kim Stanley Robinson
Hi,
I decided to click on your user page after reading your comments at Notability (Fiction). Anyway, I thought I'd let you know that I've read parts of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy as part of a college course on utopian fiction. To be blunt, it was a disaster for everyone involved. KSR is an acquired taste --lots of technical language, and loooong descriptions of the Martian landscape-- and most of the people in the class lost interest quickly. There was very little class discussion, beyond people complaining about KSR's writing style. Maybe your students are more motivated than the students of Loyola University Chicago, but if not, I'd look at some other books about the future. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Reworking FICT
Based on your comments at WT:FICT and WT:NOTE I think you've got a good bead on where I think there is an appropriate compromise position that I've been trying to find for fictional elements for the last year or so, (we need a level of coverage, but not too much) and the tenacity to help show why its necessary to go this way (something I'm not good at). While I know we still have to convince editors at NOTE that there's a common sense issue to notability, I think starting a userspace draft of a new FICT to hit the points you stated would be beneficial and to make sure it keeps it from being cluttered by too many hands (part of the failure of FICT recently in that on the way to getting to a point of consensus, too many people got involved. I think we need a fixed point of a smaller number, then present it and work out improvements from there). I want to see if you are interested in this, either writing or commenting directly on a userspace draft? --MASEM 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability discussion
I really appreciate your efforts over the past few days to try and clear up the notability requirement and deal with fiction. I think it's noble, and I think it's something we have to do. But I also think you're pushing too hard too fast. This is a debate that's had on AFDs and wikiprojects across wikipedia. Even among a small group, it's not clear that we can establish a consensus: a common argument on both sides is that the "wider, silent consensus" supports their position.
To give you some background, there was a huge request for comment at WP:FICT that gathered nearly 100 comments, and it was split pretty evenly. One of the outcomes of the discussion was that a good portion of the opposition to WP:FICT rejected all notability guidelines in general, and said that the general notability guideline doesn't have consensus. And even if it did have consensus, WP:FICT can just create a totally new parallel guideline that essentially allows WP:EVERYTHING. Of course, that didn't sit well with the supporters of WP:FICT, let alone the people who didn't even want WP:FICT at all and just wanted to stick with WP:NOTE.
At any rate, the debate over fiction has spilled into WP:NOTE in a strong way, and it's actually making headway. People are trying to revise WP:NOTE so that it reflects consensus, or clarify the consensus that they believe exists as of now. That's where Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Proposals comes from. People have varying interpretations of how WP:FICT (and other guidelines like WP:BOOK and WP:MUSIC) extend/clarify/modify WP:NOTE, or at least how they SHOULD work. The plan, in the long run, is to solicit feedback about WP:NOTE on a grand scale. And that means a little patience. Once we've clarified WP:NOTE, we can start to talk specifically about fiction again. And that will take even more patience.
I figure this might help you understand how we got here, and why discussions are so long and slow. Randomran (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I know it's been a divisive guideline for a long time. But there was enough consensus to accept it, and to reject Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability. I think a lot of the divisions are over details. There are a few extremists who think notability is perfect the way it is despite its lack of clarity, and there are a few extremists who reject notability altogether despite its persistence. I think you'll be surprised how much support "in the middle" we get for clarifying notability. But I'm not about to be overly optimistic. That's why I've been trying to encourage people to post their proposed clarifications of notability at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Proposals. If we accept even 1 out of 20, that will represent progress. I think it has a better chance of finding some real consensus than small discussions right at WT:N. Randomran (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy Independence Day!
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Universite de Wallis
How was the Universite de Wallis article deleted without any discussion? How is it possible for me to protest this decision? Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume that you deleted this through the speedy delete process. I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that a single protest was enough to undue a speedy deleted article? If it is to be discussed further then shouldn't it be done publically? It is notable in a number of ways. It is mentioned in some reliable sources. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)I object, too. Please restore the article and take it to AfD. To you it may look like a "run-of-the-mill degree mill," but to me it looks like a notable scam. --Orlady (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, Here's a quote from the wp:Speedy_delete article. "7. An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." I bolded the last sentence. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of this entity is the intensity with which its partisans have attempted to promote it as a legitimate institution. The lead sentence of the deleted article was a pro forma one: "The Université de Wallis (Wallis University) is allegedly a French university, founded in 2005 and regulated by Article L 771-1 of the Education code of the French Republic," in which "alleged" is the most important word. The reliably sourced content in the article is in the next two sentences (but it was not well expressed). The sources were published in the form of lists, but these are not trivial lists, as they reflect research by the sources (mainly by the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, which maintains this list): "The U.S. state of Oregon says that the university is operated from London and claiming a location in the Wallis and Fortuna Islands in the South Pacific. Oregon and Michigan identify the institution as an unaccredited institution." I fear that removal of the English-language Wikipedia article will make it easier for this outfit to defraud prospective students. --Orlady (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Phil, I'm having difficulty following this three way conversation spread across three different places. Please, I would appreciate it if you would kindly place your responses here. It should be obvious that your deletion is considered controversial to at least me and Orlady. Please restore the article. Please restore the article and take it to AfD. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that the article had any assertion of notability, and the stated reasons have not been assertions of notability. If you want me to quickly undelete the article, I am happy to do so - just provide a non-trivial mention in a secondary source (still well below the notability threshold) and I'll undelete it.
Otherwise, I suggest you take the matter to DRV. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, Thank you for responding here! Would it be possible for you to allow me to see the deleted article? I know that the article wasn't very long but I still don't have it memorized. :-) Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Phil Sandifer/Wallis. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Phil, I really do appreciate it. This allowed me to refresh my memory. When I first saw the article, it had probably been written by the fraud that runs the diploma mill (along with another diploma mill, Robert de Sorbon). I was going to ask for artcile deletion until I found the ODA reference. The article does assert notability in my opinion and in Orlady's opinion. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this criteria but claiming to be french, really run from London, and claiming to be in Wallis seems notable to me? Wallis only has about 15,000 people and they have their own diploma mill! A diploma mill that is offering them a free English class. Anyway, I think that Orlady's arguments are sound. I would like to add that I've found the article useful in the past because it allowed me to track down the original author of the article and repair other articles that he added further wp:SPAM to. So it has also contributed in small part to the integrity of Wikipedia outside the actual article itself. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- None of that seems to me to be an assertion of notability in the sense that we mean it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- If by notable you mean that it must have reliable sources referencing it, the only wp:reliable source I've been able to find is the ODA reference. If that is insufficient in your opinion then so beit. If another reliable source does reference it in the future it is less likely that it will be added to the Wikipedia article if the Wikipedia article doesn't exist. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Jonny Moseley
I'm glad that you took a look at Jonny Moseley but, you should take a look at the changes made by the other editor before coming to my "talk" with an attitude. I don't care if an editor create an account with a name that may suggest some connection to the subject of the article. That is an assumption on your behave, because you know very well that anyone can create an account with whatever name they please. Especially those who are "fans" of a specific subject.
Now, before you come to my talk page to complain, take the time to look at the other person's edits: On May 15, 2008 - [8], On June 8, 2008 [9] and on June 22, 2008 [10]. Not only did the person delete a well written encyclopedic version of the article, but the person insisted in posting a fan type of article with POV's in total disregard to the established format, not once but three times. This my friend, in my book, is the same as vandalism.
Even if the editor has some involvement with the subject, the editor may add to the article without distorting it's format and even then he or she is subject to the rules which we all must follow which states that he or she must refrain from POV's and provide verifiable reliable sources to back up whatever they post. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are entitled to your opinion on the matter and you have expressed yourself. As for me, I am no longer interested in hearing from you. I have much better things to do, like creating interesting articles for our readers to read then to pursue this any further. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: User talk:Excalibur
Hi - just a troll, some vandalism reverted. What's your interest - that's a bit obscure isnt it? Excalibur (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your comment
You did note how long ago those messages were left correct? DustiSPEAK!! 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Then I guess my question now is why are you now bringing them up? The first template was one requesting an edit summary. If you look here you will see how unsourced information was added, hence my edit summary request. DustiSPEAK!! 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Your edit to Frederick Crews
Thank you for your edit to Frederick Crews. However, for the record, the title of Crews's follow-up to The Pooh Perplex is simply Postmodern Pooh, not The Postmodern Pooh. Skoojal (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Juggernaut
Thanks for helping out with the Juggernaut article. :) --DrBat (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
How is DrBat still allowed to touch The Juggernaut page?TheJaff (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Juggernaut
Since the article is protected to promote discussion, all of your edits are going to be reverted.
Just a heads up.
- J Greb (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Your deletion of Mahaffey Fabric Structures
Hi Phil. Can you please further explain your reasons for deleting Mahaffey Fabric Structures? I posted the article as a generic, unbiased encyclopedia entry. If you look at Rubb, you will see that the Mahaffey Fabric Structures article is very similar in nature to this article. There is not a single line of blatant advertising, just as there is not on the Rubb article, there are third-party references as your requirements suggest, and there is no conflict of interest -- I have expertise in this field, as your requirements also suggest, so that's why I added this article. Please advise. Thank you for your time. Mtc38118 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. However, can you provide a little more information about how to make this article work? I know there needs to be more secondary sources, but could you give me a little more help on that? I thought there were plenty, at least as far as the references were concerned. Thanks so much for your time and help. It is very much appreciated. Mtc38118 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
OTRS info
How do I look up the OTRS info you gave for Ed Trice? Bubba73 (talk), 00:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, but I don't see anything on the WP:OTRS that tells me how to look up that item. Can you point me to it? Bubba73 (talk), 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Uniting Super-titles... (Thanks)
Your reply was exactly what I was looking for. A third party confirmation that there was some merit in what I did. Now I guess the next step is to see how the contributor(s) who created the section react. With any luck they come up with a good single sentence. Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth did Paul Diamond (lawyer) get deleted?
What do you think you were doing?? Nobody told me that this was even being debated - which I think is at least a small oversight, considering I had written the thing. On my count in that debate there were three keeps and three deletes.
So there is absolutely no consensus, and I have no idea what the OTRS complaint was, but this deletion is totally unreasoned. This is an entirely notable person: I had listed the cases he has been involved on: all precedent setting for religious discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Once again, it is incredible that I was not notified. I'd like you to put it back. Wikidea 18:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, but mate, - and I mean this in a nice way - you're talking rubbish! There was no consensus whatsoever. You know that as well as I do. I can see that you were eager to do something about the page, because you got this complaint and that's understandable. I can't know what the complain contained. Perhaps alleging the page was innaccurate? Let me assure you I know what I write about, and there was nothing there innaccurate or anything less than impartial. And again, it is amazing that I wasn't informed. Surely people proposing deleting are first under a duty to tell the people who created the page about these things?
- I'm guessing you're an administrator, so you can just reverse it. Either that, or please copy me the page: you could do it here - User:Wikidea/Paul Diamond - and I'll post it up again. And if someone complains again, you can have somebody take part in a neutrality debate who knows what he's talking about. I think that is the only fair solution. Wikidea 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh bloody hell. The point was, Phil, that the deletion debate had no consensus, and the people who said the man is not notable were ignorant. I think that you just aren't capable of admitting your mistake. Deleting pages is disruptive. Spending time contributing to Wikipedia to spread knowledge is productive, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You have not said what was wrong with the page, and you are hiding behind your admin privileges as a way out from justifying a flimsy position. Wikidea 22:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Now you're just being funny. I know that it's difficult to admit you are wrong, but have a look again at the discussion page - and take a deep breath - and have a look at the WP consensus policy page. Would you like to take a moment to explain in ordinary language how 2 "keeps" and someone saying "there can be non consensus" against four deletes is consensus? I suppose you could argue that because "silence" implies consent, and people did not go on arguing there was; but once again, why was I not informed? Wikidea 22:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Juggernaut protection
I think for the most part that more was getting done after the article was unprotected than during the discussion prior, which led to no consensus. I'd encourage you to rethink protection. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's not how it appears to me, and others have shared questions/concerns.
- I've spent the last day or so reading over the situation, comparing time stamps, etc, and I don't believe I am doing this "in the dark".
- That said, I would welcome discussion on the article's talk page. Both about the protection, and about the changes since July 6. - jc37 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- More has been kept over the last few days than reverted, which suggests progress. Perhaps heated progress, but progress. Furthmore, reverting to the July 2nd version is completely out of line - it amounts to stepping in and declaring that version the "last good version" before protecting - a clear intervention in the dispute prior to protection. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. You may wish to take a moment and (re-)read m:The Wrong Version.
- Incidentally, I picked that far back (as I noted on the article's talk page) specifically because it was clearly prior to the "discussion".
- And finally, the accusation you just made on the article's talk page would seem to be an indication that you aren't currently objective, and "smacks" of rather bad faith, on your part. (Since becoming an admin, I've found WP:AAGF an interesting read, as well.)
- Rather than complain about it, how about start/join in on a discussion concerning the article's content, rather than attacking other editors.
- Who knows, we might get a better article from the discussion. And that's why we're all here, right?
- Incidentally, I respectfully request that you remove your comments in response to the protection from the article's talk page, not so much because they're rather near being personal attacks, but rather just in the spirit of WP:EQ and WP:Wikilove. (And it saves me from having to respond to them there, which I think might hinder your ability to openly join in on (be openly accepted in) the discussion.) - jc37 20:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- More has been kept over the last few days than reverted, which suggests progress. Perhaps heated progress, but progress. Furthmore, reverting to the July 2nd version is completely out of line - it amounts to stepping in and declaring that version the "last good version" before protecting - a clear intervention in the dispute prior to protection. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will not remove the comments. And there's not going to be a discussion there. Just like there wasn't last time it was protected. So I'm not exactly worried about my exclusion from a process that isn't going to go anywhere. I'm much more concerned about the cutting off of a process that was. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Coqui Frogs
Hi, I restored the "invasive, non-native" words in the Dressed to Kill (book) article. The authors have taken an activist stance on the subject so the words are helpful to frame their involvement. See "Coqui story stirs debate" in http://www.hear.org/kisc/pdfs/20071005coquinews.pdf. It's a small point and I didn't want to add this to the Dressed to Kill (book) talk page unless you feel strongly about the topic. Then we could invite other editors to chime in. Cheers, Mattnad (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Indiana Gregg article
Since you are an administrator, could you help me with a problem in the Indiana Gregg article. Apart from the usual References and External links sections, there is also a rogue References/External links section containing outdated copies of both sections. I'm asking you to remove it, since it contains only the references for the section you removed, and external links that are either included in the existing section or fail WP:EL#NO and WP:EL#ADV and thus were removed in the existing section. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking, if the Pirate Bay controversy is so (in)famous as the IPs imply, we should really have a separate page about it. I'm suggesting this here and I won't go forward with it before this all settles down because of POV forking that could ensue. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA Review
Phil, you were right. I'm struggling to complete the report, and I'm prepared to admit that you had a very valid point. I'm sorry if my comments brushed you off, and I humbly apologise for not giving your comments more thought.Would you be interested in pitching in? I've left some comments at WT:RREV if you would. Many thanks, and I hope you can forgive a fool. Gazimoff WriteRead 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Sandifer, I'm wondering why you deleted an article that I contributed to. Would you kindly discuss this with me?
I contributed to an article about Evgeni Kostitsyn. Did you delete the article because the secondary sources were not listed properly? If so, I can fix that.
Thanks for your quick reply.
-Flip Livingston —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.77.135 (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Cricket and branching articles
I saw this at the village pump and thought I would reply here. The cricket WikiProject used to write match reports and transclude them into season articles. It was a very useful adoption of features of the software, but was pretty much killed because we simply don't transclude in the article namespace. It was a shame. Although I can see the position that such transclusion created a barrier for new users. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket matches articles which also contains links to all the other discussion. I don't know what the final outcome was, I lost touch with the Cricket project a while back. The strange thing was this was another issue where what was useful to outsiders and was praised in the media fell foul of perceived standards on Wikipedia. I don't get the idea that we're here to replicate Brittanica. I always thought we were here to push the boundaries. The problem is trying to get a consensus or groundswell behind the idea that we should push the boundaries. Too many people think that if we move towards the sea we'll drown. They forget we can swim. Hiding T 10:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Indiana Gregg
There are several edits begin made with regard to Indiana Gregg. We have no reference to her date of birth that is cited anywhere on the web. However, wikieditor2008 has made entries of a date of birth and a name as Melissa Gregg. In my research, I only can find a Melissa Gregg from australia who is a PHd and I do not believe that this is the same person. Likewise, wikieditor2008 is continually insulting other editors in the 'discussion' section of the article. I was wondering if you could help intervene.Littleredm&m (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unrelated to that, above editor re-inserted the Pirate-Bay-dispute-section. I tagged it POV and lacking notability for now but I would really like your opinion on this matter. Regards. So#Why 14:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The Daily Express is only a 'tabloid-sized' newspaper. It is not considered a 'tabloid' in the sense of gossip. It is considered a credible family newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleredm&m (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Poke for the wiki-en-L mailing list
Hi Phil, if you're still online, could you please check the moderation queue for wiki-en-L? There should be a very long message there that needs mod approval. You'll know it when you see it. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
edit warring Indiana Gregg=
I have been making some edits to the Indiana Gregg page and there have been constant reversions of anything I edit made by wikieditor2008. He keeps claiming agressively that I am making the reversions. I don't understand his willingness to make the page read so labouriously. There have even been entries made about how much Gregg paid to enter a contest, etc. I don't believe that you read anywhere about how much it costs to enter a forumula 1 race, etc. We know that Gregg played several festivals last year, however, she was only a headline act on two of the festivals (I found the citations); however, wikieditor2008 keeps insisted on putting in that she only played '2' festivals for example but, many acts play festivals and their name is only mentioned on the bill if they are part of the headline. We still don't have a proper DOB for Gregg, however, wikieditor2008 keeps trying to put in random ages in awkward places in the text. I think that the page should be edited properly. Would you mind having a look at this? Thank youLittleredm&m (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Sandifer,
I have noticed that a wikieditor2008 has been making entries vandalising the wiki article on Indiana Gregg after I see that much work has been made making citations and sources. I have removed some things he was writing about the Pirate Bay and asked him to stop. I think that he will continue. He has made a citation on her page in the references where he makes many statements about the artist in efforts to denigrate in my opinion. Wettendass2008 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Indiana Gregg unprotection
Littleredm&m, Wettendass2008 and the IP using these accounts, were blocked for sockpuppeting about half an hour after you protected the page, and Wikieditor2008 said on the Indiana Gregg talk page he doesn't want to edit Wikipedia again. Since these events, nothing has happenned on the talk page. As it is evident that both edit-warring parties left, I don't see a reason to keep the page protected anymore. Admiral Norton (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest lowering it to semi-protection. While Admiral Norton's reasoning is sound, we should really keep them away if they decide to continue as IPs or newly registered users. So#Why 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Indiana Gregg disputes in 'talk' pages
Hi Phil, I just came back from holiday and checked on the one page I was interested in only to find an 'agenda' being discussed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor2008
I was accused of being a 'sockpuppet'. There is some evidence that Indiana Gregg's label website has been hacked and also that her email (that was published by the pirate bay) was hacked. Therefore, her IP address was more than likely subject to abuse. I have seen that some 'sockpuppets' were banned from wikipedia, however, one of those sockpuppets made edits claiming that they were planning to publish Indiana Gregg's divorce. I have also read that there are claims that those sockpuppets were Indiana and her husband; however, I don't think that Indiana (or anyone in the world for that matter) would want to make her divorce public. I believe there has been a good deal of 'sockpuppetry', and I think you'll be interested in the "agenda" being discussed by an admiralNOrton and a wikieditor2008 on the 'talk' page cited above. I have no 'direct' interest in Gregg other than I felt as though the page would need some extra care seeing how The Pirate Bay are on an agenda to 'humiliate' alongside the various vulnerabilities of wikipedia. You are being spoken about negatively on that talk page. Just to let you know that there is a clear 'agenda' surrounding that page.
Carribeanqueen (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Protection
I'm wondering why you felt that you were neutral enough to the discussion that you should remove protection, even though you were clearly involved in the discussion.
I'm wondering where you asked other admins about this.
For that matter, I'm wondering where my talk page notice from you was.
So in other words, unprotecting the page yourself would seem to be an abuse of admin tools.
All of the above said, I'm not going to revert the unprotection. (I had noted to J Greb, that I was concerned about leaving it protected indefinitely, and was planning to unprotect shortly anyway.)
That said, in light of your action here, when combined with your previous action of unprotecting the page, apparently indicating POV wheel-warring, consider this: If you begin (again) to "push" the discussion, or to "bully" other editors, or "push" your preferred version through intimidation and/or reversion, or continue this pattern of "wheel-warring", etc., you may be blocked.
I'll be leaving a notice at AN/I shortly. - jc37 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Branching articles template
I don't know what you were thinking for templates for the branching article idea, but I've created what I thought is a reasonable one.
The test page is User:Masem/heirtoptest, which uses User:Masem/heirtop as the template, which basically allows for up to 4 levels deep of heirarchy in branching articles. Basically, the call would end up looking like: {{tlname | main article | first sublevel | second sublevel | third sublevel | fourth sublevel }} (the user would have to wikilink manually to make these as short as possible).
Let me know if you were thinking of something else. --MASEM 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- The only issue with using GUI tabs is that tab information means that the information sits at the same level, not heirarchial. You could have tabs for, say, all seasons of a show under episodes, and tabs could be used for a 1-level deep heirarchy, but don't work well beyond that. (Plus I'm not sure if visually it can be made in WP) --MASEM 00:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Your deletion of Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa)
Hi there. You speedy deleted an article about an important church in Ottawa. I don't know if this was done in error or not but can you please restore it. Thank you.--D'Iberville (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- So the deletion wasn't an accident? I don't see how you can consider that church (which incidentally predates three provinces and two territories) as not notable. The article notes the role it had in the development of Westboro village and bringing in and supporting the Ottawa Baptist community, it has a larger congregation than the eponymous US church and its name has brought it much infamous attention. It and All Saint's Anglican are the two big main churches in the area and it's also has the only Montessori programme in the immediate area. I always planed to add more info (and noticed the deletion because I was going to) but I thought it already had enough info to allay any notability concerns. Moreover, churches with less history, less importance and less information remain here on the Wiki, but this one was deleted? You should have put in a notability tag on the article or contacted me with any concerns or at the very least put it up for a deletion vote, especially considering your unfamiliarity on the topic, instead of unilaterally deciding it didn't have importance and speedy deleting it. Regardless, it is an important church today and had an important impact on the development of Ottawa, please restore the article.--D'Iberville (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. D'Iberville (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Stangroom/Docmartin
I appreciate your asking, but it wasn't necessary - all I ever did was to inform the partices of Wikipedia's policies. Anyway, no objections at all on my part! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
drmartincohen
FYI I suspect he is now editing other articles such as Chinese Philosophy using multiple onetime IPs. The approach is identical to the original. I have reversed but he is getting tedious. --Snowded TALK 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
How do we stop this sockpuppetry, next wooly sheep now 86.220.119.55 (talk)? He is wasting time everybody's time on the philosophy page ?--Philogo 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to get a sense of just how extensively he and his sock puppets have interfered with the philosophy entries, then check out:
Gettier problem (90.17.7.136: 14:18, 31 May 2008)
Unsolved problems in philosophy (Dremeraldgibb: 22:21, 22 May 2008)
David Hume (Dremeraldgibb: 18:16, 30 May 2008)
John Locke (Dremeraldgibb: 21:28, 31 May 2008)
Thought experiment (Dremeraldgibb: 12:04, 24 May 2008)
Maoism (90.62.219.253: 19:34, 18 June 2008)
101 (number) (Docmartincohen: 20:15, 18 July 2008)
Most of the additions are absurd - one or two are perhaps not quite so absurd.
--99.232.75.237 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC) (Jeremy Stangroom)
re block and protection of User talk:Docmartincohen
Hi. I have left this message at ST47's talkpage, which I hope is self explanatory. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Gainesville meetup
Wikipedia:Meetup/Gainesville, Florida
Time and location are still fluid; if you're interested, drop a line at the link above. Horologium (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Indiana Gregg disputes in 'talk' pages
Hi Phil, I just came back from holiday and checked on the one page I was interested in only to find an 'agenda' being discussed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor2008
Sockpuppets and Phil Sandifer being ridiculed in talk pages
I was accused of being a 'sockpuppet'. I have no idea as to why. I have been away on holiday for a couple of weeks. I do know that there is some evidence that Indiana Gregg's label website has been hacked and also that her email address (which was published by the pirate bay) was hacked. I have received viagra adverts from Indiana myself as I am on her fanmailing list. She subsequently sent out an email to her subscribers explaining the situation.
Therefore, her IP address was more than likely subject to abuse.
I have seen that some 'sockpuppets' were banned from wikipedia, however, one of those sockpuppets made edits claiming that they were planning to publish Indiana Gregg's divorce. I have also read that there are claims that those sockpuppets were indeed Indiana and her husband; however, I don't think that Indiana (or anyone in the world for that matter) would want to make her divorce public or even make reference to that in a public discussion. Therefore, I believe that this wikipedia page has been under calculated attack. (as you will read about their 'agenda' in the above mentioned discussion page') I believe there has been a good deal of 'sockpuppetry', and I think you'll be interested in the "agenda" being discussed by an admiralNOrton and a wikieditor2008 on the 'talk' page cited above. I have no 'direct' interest in Gregg other than I felt as though the page would need some extra care seeing how The Pirate Bay are on an agenda to 'humiliate' alongside the various vulnerabilities of wikipedia. You are being spoken about negatively on that talk page. Just to let you know that there is a clear 'agenda' surrounding that page.
Carribeanqueen (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey CQ, you have the header infos of the allegedly send viagramail to you from her account? Because in case you might not know it, anybody can send mail under any senders name to anybody. That does not mean it came from her account. What do you mean with "her IP address was more then likely subject to abuse" How can someone abuse her IP address? Are you saying Mrs Gregg is as computer illiterate as she is "Swedish law and where the borders of US jurisdiction end" illiterate and has installed on her computer a remote administration tool or trojan that opend her Computer/her internet account to unknow 3rd parties? 62.226.29.87 (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for admitting above that you are a SPA account. I guess that will help reasonable admins beside Phil to judge how to deal with you should you start your revertings like you did in July.
Just a note, I'm on vacation (RL, not just wiki) and not going to deal with this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
RFC
Dear Phil Sandifer, If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : The American acadamy of opthalmology link listed in the external link section ? appreciate your comment, Seeyou (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed just now that you deleted this article two months after it survived AfD. I've restored it. If you think it ought to be deleted, I invite you to take it to AfD for a second nomination. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
RFC
Dear Phil Sandifer,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article. Paragraph : Elwin Marg was an optometrist ! appreciate your comment, Discussion is about whether or not the profession of Elwin Marg should be mentioned in the external link section. Seeyou (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Phil I clarified your question, I hope. See discussion page and below
- I do understand your question Phil. See below :
Edit Seeyou :
Edit Ronz :
Seeyou (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ettinger
Special:WhatLinksHere/Bracha_L._Ettinger may help you. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.159.44 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've found one the spammer's account [11], Now you believe me? You can see that ALL of his edits are spamming Ettinger. This is a sock of Nimrod Kamer and Marina T. Please report it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.43.201 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I seriously do not care who added the Ettinger information. I care that it is in appropriate places, which at this point it is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is clear she should be removed from List of psychology topics, Antigone, Film theory, Culture of Israel, Aesthetics and Art history. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.43.201 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Phil I am looking for your help here. It seems that Bracha Ettinger, a notable artists and feminist, is being systematically removed. It seems to be the result of her being declared on the Internet by some people as a 'self-hating jew' since she is activist against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The reasons seem political hate and persecution, unless it is a personal hate by some Israeli. Her noteablity doesn't need to be proved, a small glance at Google Books or Google Scholars will be enough. It seems to me that we must work together against this vandalism concerning Ettinger. I am going to restore her name, please do not be offended if I undo your inteventions. Something very wrong and scandalous is going on against this major artist. I would like to start restoring her name where it was taken off. Your help will be appreciated, since you did some of the "cleaning", probably naively. Best wishes, Artethical (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I did not do it naively, and the changes should not be reverted. I have no doubt that Ettinger is notable. However to call her a notable psychoanalyst on the level of Lacan, Kristeva, and Irigaray is a farce, as is treating the Matrixial gaze as in some way on the same level of importance as Mulvey's original concept. There is a huge line between notable enough for an article and notable enough to have been put in all the places she was. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I have upset you, i was simply taken by big surprise. best wishesArtethical (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I mean, I see that you have done the best.Artethical (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil yes initially and truthfully I was somewhat surprised by all the places Ettinger appears also. My expertise is mostly the fine arts. That said - I've been doing some deep searching - and I saw a picture with Giselda Pollock with her arm around Ettinger, I saw pretty much links to most of the stuff she claims. Pictures of Lyotard taken by her, had to be in the 90s. I removed her from a few obvious places where she is in over her head, but I.ve returned her largely to where it makes sense that she's had input. You gotta just trust your own judgment. I'm trusting my judgment as well. So far you have done a spectacular job. As to Feminism in France she lives and works there, and has for from what I can tell most of her life.....That's one that common sense says she belongs. Modernist (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi; a couple of points about your recent revert. Firstly, I was under the impression that the rollback feature was exclusively provided for the reversion of "blatantly unproductive edits". Since I quoted two policies in my edit, in a way that was not merely Wikilawyering and disruptive, it would have been courteous to discuss or at least provide an edit-summary.
Now onto the material itself: I don't understand how that material can be allowed to stay given the fact that discussions about Doctor Who, rather than about Doctor Who *articles*, are expressly forbidden, and that they are "subject to removal". The discussion certainly serves no purpose by staying there, and merely clogs up the page and, eventually, archives - it's not necessary. Rather than reverting immediately, please discuss, or take this for a WP:3O or to WP:VPP or to WP:AN or to WP:ANI or to WP:RFC or to WP:RFAR - these are all more appropriate venues for a dispute than the rollback button. Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)