MikeWazowski (talk | contribs) →Anne Rice: new section |
→Anne Rice: sexist control of Wikipedia information |
||
Line 295: | Line 295: | ||
Thanks for your input on the Anne Rice talk page - I could use another pair of eyes on the page, as this new editor seems determined to ram her preferred version through, even against various guidelines about image use and sourcing. [[User:MikeWazowski|MikeWazowski]] ([[User talk:MikeWazowski|talk]]) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for your input on the Anne Rice talk page - I could use another pair of eyes on the page, as this new editor seems determined to ram her preferred version through, even against various guidelines about image use and sourcing. [[User:MikeWazowski|MikeWazowski]] ([[User talk:MikeWazowski|talk]]) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Anne Rice cannot be separated from New Orleans. It is woven through all of her books, and it is a large part of what made her famous. Have either of you read her work? This is aon-issue for anyone familiar with her work. Her home, properties, the streets of the Garden District, the purple and red sunsets are lavishly described in her novels. An entire industry of Anne Rice tours sprung up in New Orleans. The pictures shown all figure into her novels. Rather than thoughtful editing, the user MikeWazowski completely stripped ALL referenced biographical material and restored poorly written material. Now, he is calling the pictures decoration. If so, please remove the "decoration" from these author entries: |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kennedy_Toole |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keats |
|||
This is clearly sexist. As I asked user MikeWazowski, how many images are allowed for female authors? Agatha Christie is one of the top selling novelists of all time (2 billion copies), only surpassed by Shakespeare. Compare the images: |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie |
|||
Again, I ask, how many images are permissible for female authors - particularly those whose works prominently feature particular settings? Rice has an international following. Fans travel from all over the world to New Orleans to see what she has described in her novels. |
|||
Finally, I direct you to this Google search pointing out the problem of the male dominated culture on Wikipedia and the dearth of female editors, of which I am one. I have a B.A. in English Literature and a J.D. Next step for me is to contact the media and all interested parties in the Wikipedia Foundation. Fine to help me to learn the Wikipedia protocols, but trashing my work and the author in the process is a bit too much. Why not try "friendly and helpful" like the female editors? I offer good, documented content. I know the subject matter. stop with the fraternity hazing treatment. |
Revision as of 18:37, 27 June 2011
Meh?
Hello, There is plenty of material in reliable sources available to expand the article about William M. Feehan into a decent biography. That can't happen, though, if the article is deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, "meh". You can interpret my opinion there as a "weak keep", i.e. the article subject may meet the notability guidelines, but it isn't exactly a barn-burner. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The issue, then, is whether the closing administrator will understand your "week keep". By the way, I expanded and referenced Orio Palmer, a related AfD. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As long as we don't get an admin from the much-derided WP:ARS crew, I trust a closing admin's general ability to close AfDs accurately. As for Palmer, no, you just can't squeeze that much blood from a stone. More sources talking about the same issue doesn't make the issue go away. All he is known for is being a victim of a tragedy. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The issue, then, is whether the closing administrator will understand your "week keep". By the way, I expanded and referenced Orio Palmer, a related AfD. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The article Mut@ge.Mix@ge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unreferenced article about a non-notable collection of music. Does not pass WP:NALBUMS.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scottdrink (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
AAAAAAAAAAAARGH
Just saw your revert to List of soft rock musicians. Couldn't agree more! ;-) Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 17:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's gotta go to AfD and be tossed, honestly. Not just because of dumb stuff people will add per se, but because it is so broad a topic as to be worthless, list-wise. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem with that. I have to confess a dislike of list articles, full stop. The content will always be subjective, and never complete. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- ...unless extremely precise, such as List of Nobel laureates in Physics. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Campaign to remove Wikipe-tan from this site
Hello Tarc,
I agreed strongly with your position on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!. I am interested in starting a discussion about removing the project pages associated with Wikipe-tan for much of the same rationales you outlined there. Do you have any opinions on how I might pursue this?
IvoryMeerkat (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Send Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan itself for deletion, perhaps. Not sure what can be done if the anime wikiproject has it for it's own mascot, as project are usually treated like personal fiefdoms around here. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- At the very least, removing it from the main Wikipedia: space will allow it to remain contained within the anime project. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't happen all the time, but sometimes the right side prevails. Tarc, I saw that you made the "undersexed basement-dwellers" that someone associated me with--and I don't mind. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we'll see, I guess: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan (2nd nomination). I'm not sure I hit all the bases, but it seems to me that there are a huge number of reasons to move forward. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Courtesy note
This is a courtesy note that I have quoted your comments from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8 at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geo Swan. Cunard (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Epeefleche is beating the drums mighty hard over there, eh? The "involved admin" is one of the most abused things we have around here. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
I'm glad someone said it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at AN/I
Please note that I have requested review of your recent comments at AN/I. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Tarc, I sympathise with your position on this image, and that is makes you uncomfortable. It's definitely not to my taste either FWIW. But it's not really appropriate to sling ad-hominems at the other editors on the AFD just because they disagree and find the image tasteful. It's probably not helping the cause and it is definitely not in line with the civility tenet. I've left a slightly longer note at AN/I about the problems with associating this with some form of sexual arousal (which is more a general point and not directed specifically at you). --Errant (chat!) 09:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is something deeply wrong about using images of deliberatly precocious children wearing adult clothes (one of the outfits looks, to me, very like the proverbial French maid's outfit) to promote anything. It matters not if the child is an animation or a living child - the mental picture and inference is quite clear. Those that encourage such images should have the dangers very clearly spelt out to them. I'm not going to ANI to say this as nothing of any value ever emerges from that vociferous page, but I suggest those defending and condoning with their indifference think on that very seriously. Giacomo Returned 10:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, particularly the use of the image as a mascot for the site, that is inappropriate. Apart from this: the mental picture and inference is quite clear, which is not at all accurate. You will, sadly, get people finding sexual arousal in these images. But such individuals will get arousal from just about any image of a child, clothed, unclothed, animated etc. The vast majority of people see little or no sexuality in the image (I'd have to dig out the studies to about this, it is quite a while since I have worked complex CP cases so they are at the back of my library somewhere). Most that do see the sexuality (you, tarc, me in part) are generally disturbed by it, which is the better of the two options I think :) However, the psychology of this arena is extremely complicated and the general implication being made about those defending the image is demonstrably incorrect. The intent of images such as this is not usually sexual any more than a caricature is supposed to be a physical portrait. Arguing that they could be viewed in a sexual light and are therefore a problem has always struck me as a pointless argument, images someone takes of their kids on the beach could be viewed in a sexual light (in fact more so, they are easily one of the most traded images in the rather sickening "jailbait" circles). Where does it stop ;) --Errant (chat!) 11:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about you Errant, but when I phtograph my children on the beach, they are wearing great baggy shorts from their navals to their knees, and huge T shirts their mother insists upon because aparently any glimmer of sunshine will resilt in instant skin cancer; they are not wearing French maids outfits and kitten ears with their behinds stuck in the air, Haiwain hand maidens and big bossomed air stewardesses. In fact, in my experience, most adolescents are very body conscious - especially girls and shy from the camera in bathing attire. I suspect from your post above that you are about to psychobabble me, pease don't. In defence of those, who see these images as harmless and innocent, I thnk such subjects only generally become thought about after one has had children of one's own and the protective gene emerges. Wikipedia has a young/student editorship. However, I don't think there are many men who are unaware of the significance of a French maid's outfit or a woman in uniform with deliberatly accentuated breasts - do you? Giacomo Returned 11:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you on the appropriateness of the image, or the poor choice of clothing. Just the characterisation of those defending it and the portrayal of the image as intending to be a sexualisation (which is unlikely). At the same time as trying to edify others on the facts of the issue (for example; the photograph you just described is among one of the most traded for such purposes). Some of the other images are more problematic, in particular the "bikini babe" one. --Errant (chat!) 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I don't make any "I will no longer say X" promises, but hopefully the whole thing will simmer down once this latest MfD is done with. The funny thing is that I actually like a good bit of anime myself, but not the kiddie stuff. I'd rather gouge my eyes out than ever sit through a Sailor Moon episode. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protection
I don't know if the person posting junk on this page has gotten bored yet or not; if they persist, I can semi-protect your talk if you'd like. Just let me know. TNXMan 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The person who we're most likely dealing with here is ChildofMidnight, who has shown a remarkable tenacity in the past. A semi sounds good for a bit, though, thx. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Question
Do you have socks? Because if so fess up and save us the time it would take to investigate. Disaster on Strike (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- $7.99 for a half-dozen at Wal-Mart, yea. Need to borrow a pair, CoM? Tarc (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Libyan Map Color
Though your example of Iran and the Olympic logo is valid, it still should be noted that along with Gaddafi extensive use of the color green, due Gaddafi making the Flag of Libya a solid green banner, the green map could be taken as representing the Gaddafi's flag, and in turn, his rule, over the entire country, despite lacking control over the east and the Eastern government being recognized by the UK, Arab League, and France as being the legitimate government --Thegunkid (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- See also; confirmation bias. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
My, my
You do seem to attract more than your fair share of 'fans', don't you. Have you ever been likened to the son of Satan? Never mind the seriously crazy, just keep deleting their crap. But do tell, do you think I could get an autograph from the chick who thinks she needs an encyclopedia page because she has a blog? Must be real famous, that one!
Keep up the good work. Peter S Strempel Page | Talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC).
Schell Games
Need an opinion on Schell Games. My immediate impression was that this article was pure (crap) promotion, with no mention of anything that qualifies as notability. It was nominated once before for deletion for lacking reputable references, but that fell over. My perspective is that regardless of the references, it reads like a yellow pages ad, saying nothing about the topic of video or online gaming. But I'm not a gamer, and, like sport, this seems to be a bit of a religion with some people. Your thoughts on deleting?
Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 16:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems like it may be a good AfD candidate. Pittsburgh Review links are to a name-only mention in 2 top-50 lists, and the technology.review.com is a 2-line blurb about the owner. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Edit war
Hi, I saw that the edit war is coninuing at Curt Cobain about whether to add punk rock. I started a discussion on the talk page about it to see what a consensus would like like about this. You attentions here would be appreciated. I just added to the discussion already going on that was started by you. Feel free to start a new header if you would like to. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI's, Jews, etc.
I hate getting involved with AN/I's in that I usually get beat up, and then I get pissed off, and then someone uses it against me in something. So I thought I'd discuss this comment just on your talk page, which keeps it out of the central kerfuffle. I think you jumped the proverbial shark to think that every Jew on Wikipedia belongs to some cabal (great word, since it's Hebrew in origin) that will block any critical article about Jews or Israel. Though I'm a Jew, I'm highly critical of Israel, as are a lot of secular progressive Jews. I see lots of articles about Palestine, or Hamas or Israel that is NPOV and criticizes Israel. And you don't see us jumping up and down about it either. But this article just had too much taken from Stormfront (by proxy, indirectly or directly, we'll never know), it was not academic at all, quote mining sources to further a stereotype, and the author just had too much history in antisemitic articles. Nevertheless, it is unfair to generalize by this one article that every Jew on Wikipedia now feels empowered to create a JPOV that trumps NPOV. This one article and one editor cannot be used as the strawman for Jewish articles in general. And absolutely can't be used for anything about Israel.
OK, this is my opinion, and it wasn't cleared by any other Jewish person.
Oh, one more thing. Sorry for calling you an inclusionist. Damn, the verbiage in this place drives me crazy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- WP:SOFIXIT ? I'm actually surprised that this topic didn't have its own article until now. As for the inclusionist thing, it was just a joke really. It's like someone calling a liberal politician a conservative" just because he made one decision that wasn't what the liberals wanted him to do. :) Inclusionism vs. deletionism is just a dumb meta-argument of the Wikipedia itself, in the grand scheme of the outside would it matters little. It is rather fascinating to watch inclusionism vs. defenders-of-all-things-Israel (yes, I realize that there are deletes from outside that camp as well, don't worry) in that AfD, though. The proverbial unstoppable force vs. immovable object. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have to admit that my expertise is in science and medicine. And baseball. Well, hockey too. So an economics article, Jewish or otherwise, is outside of my skill set. I didn't actually care at first. I am extremely sensitive to antisemitism, so I try to be as objective as I can. And on an objective level, this article reeks of bias. Yes, we could fix it, but I'm not sure how much of the article I would save if I were to rewrite it. If I had the skill to rewrite it. Anyways this lead to one of the AN/I things that keep going and can be entertaining. There's some classic snark to be found in a good AN/I. Slr and I have a mixed history, which includes his calling me a troll and warning me about something. But, in general, I trust his instincts on some issues, as we have worked on some articles that needed fixing. Following his lead, I read over the article and saw the misuse of sources, it wasn't a stretch for me to conclude that Slr is right, and the author has an antisemitic agenda. All in all, the arguments are just pissing everyone off, and people are saying some intemperate things. Once again, the Jewish Cabal has not approved this message. LOL. I couldn't resist. Block me for an hour to make me see the error of my ways. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Damn, I thought you were an admin. Glad you're not! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ha ha. Could you imagine the shitstorm of drama if I ever went up for an RfA? I'm half-tempted to invite one just to see how high it can go. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Once again, I apologize for insulting you. Hehehehe. Personally, I'd rather "vote" (I know it's not really a vote, but who are they kidding?) for an admin with balls, than the milquetoast types that are now getting the admin tag. I troll the RfA's, and honestly, I can't believe the quality. So, if you do "run", canvas my talk page. May as well cause as much drama as possible. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ha ha. Could you imagine the shitstorm of drama if I ever went up for an RfA? I'm half-tempted to invite one just to see how high it can go. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
originally on another talk page
TEMP vs BLP1E: your thoughts, please?
It is no accident, to my mind, that WP:BLP1E could only have evolved on a separate page to WP:NTEMP; they are in many senses incompatible. A person who is once famous is always famous, says NTEMP, and 1E says if they were only once famous, they were never famous. The former seems more logical to me, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue. Anarchangel (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- IMO, the easy answer is that 1E is policy while NTEMP is a guideline, so if there is a conflict between the two then the former wins. The more involved answer is that when there is a discussion about a 1E person, "notability" is not really germane. It is a given that the person in question has received coverage in reliable sources, otherwise the discussion probly wouldn't be had in the first place. What is central to 1E is of the person is only in the news for this singular incident, and if absent that situation, would they be an otherwise non-notable person. The woman who Gordon Brown called a bigot in last year's UK election does not have an article. The JetBlue steward does not have an article. The woman who was fired from her job because her large breasts were a distraction in the workplace does not have an article. All were in the news, but for only one thing. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
end transclusion
- "conflict": While this comes closest to addressing the central issue of incompatibility, that the two rules are not even close, I am actually flabbergasted to note that N, the justification of the accuracy of WP information is only a guideline. I will of course always abide by BLP, but I will never have true respect for it, as I consider it nothing more than house rules in the service of legal protection, and based in other more meaningful rules in every respect, just as the hundred rule clones in the form of essays are.
- "absent" If you take away the notability of anything, it is not notable. Let's try it a different way. If the person was taken away from the event, would the event have even happened? Surely it is more appropos that, inasmuch as people are essential factors in the situations they are notable for, they are notable.
- Now let's take this concept out for a test spin, in the two events listed at WP:1E. At first glance, it appears that it reverses the importance of the two; JFK's assassination would most surely have still happened, even if Howard Brennan had yelled at him to stop, and video would not have existed for us to witness in the first place, if George Holliday had not been holding the camera. But that is looking at the events in a cursory manner. What George Holliday is really noteworthy for is his testimony to the Warren Commission which was, as the article says, 'probative evidence' leading towards the conclusions of the prime authority in the case. George Holliday, on the other hand,
although heis also famous for saying "can't we all get along", isonlyholding the camera; <although> his actions during or after the event are not otherwise affective of the events. - There is one more concept I have in mind, that deals with both the 1E and your examples: critical placement. Would pretty much anyone have been able to see a rifleman at the sixth story, or own and operate a camera? Yes. But here is where it gets interesting; considerably fewer people have breasts large enough to consider banning, and it might be very few people indeed who would lose their rag completely at the Jet Blue passenger, or be annoying enough to make Gordon Brown lose his.
- Put these factors together with the importance of the event as a whole, and we have a rationale that means something to those that see a degree of notability to be obvious, and feel that is obfuscatory to say that there is none; to say that these people are essential factors and have critical placement in the events acknowledges that they have some effect on these events, but the events are not important enough.
- Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now let's take this concept out for a test spin, in the two events listed at WP:1E. At first glance, it appears that it reverses the importance of the two; JFK's assassination would most surely have still happened, even if Howard Brennan had yelled at him to stop, and video would not have existed for us to witness in the first place, if George Holliday had not been holding the camera. But that is looking at the events in a cursory manner. What George Holliday is really noteworthy for is his testimony to the Warren Commission which was, as the article says, 'probative evidence' leading towards the conclusions of the prime authority in the case. George Holliday, on the other hand,
My conscience was bothering me all the way through this, and I see why, now. George Holliday is -more- notable than Howard Brennan, no matter what 1E says, according to Essential Factor. "Importance of the event as a whole" is the most important factor (so it makes GH more important than HB again), then "Essential Factor", then "Critical Placement" Anarchangel (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration case
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Soundgarden's future album
You recently undid my edit adding Soundgarden's future album to the discography section of the page, saying "doesn't matter if there's a source or not, we don't list 'TBA' in a discography." But why not? I couldn't find anything on anything on WP:NMUSIC that would suggest that it isn't okay to list "TBA" on a band's discography page, it just says not to create an article for the album until you have a lot more information. Woknam66 (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because we only use what is verifiable in an encyclopedia, and if you cannot even name an album then it does little good to put some sort of "coming soon" tag in there. It is fine to mention it somewhere in the article, i.e. "So-and-so magazine reports that Soundgarden will be releasing an album in 2011", as long as so-and-so passes reliable source criteria. But there's nothing to list at an actual discography, no. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- ....But you haven't really answered my question. Is it actually Wikipedia policy to not include confirmed future unnamed albums? So far it sounds like this is really just your opinion, and not actual policy. Woknam66 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- We don't predict events here, even if we sometimes report predictions by others (say, Nostradamus, for example). Speculation about what may or may not happen is best left to journalists and politicians, not encyclopaedists. See WP:CRYSTAL. Now it's not opinion anymore. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- But I'm not predicting an event. There are multiple sources that confirm that Soundgarden is recording a new album for release in late 2011, including the band's own website. The overwhelming amount of evidence means that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, and I still have been given no actual reason why TBA shouldn't be added as a future album. Woknam66 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because the future album is not named TBA, it is as simple as that. As I said, information about is can go into the main body of the article, but there's nothing to list in a discography since there isn't anything to list. A list is for denoting concrete items, not unknowns. The rest of this discussion should go to Talk:Soundgarden if need be, though. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was planning to add something to the talk page anyways. But you still haven't actually given me any reason why TBA shouldn't be added, just your opinion (again). My main reason for adding it is so that if someone wants to know whether or not Soundgarden is releasing a new album, they can quickly and easily come to the Wikipedia page, click on the discography link, and see that they are planning on releasing a new album. Woknam66 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because the future album is not named TBA, it is as simple as that. As I said, information about is can go into the main body of the article, but there's nothing to list in a discography since there isn't anything to list. A list is for denoting concrete items, not unknowns. The rest of this discussion should go to Talk:Soundgarden if need be, though. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- But I'm not predicting an event. There are multiple sources that confirm that Soundgarden is recording a new album for release in late 2011, including the band's own website. The overwhelming amount of evidence means that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, and I still have been given no actual reason why TBA shouldn't be added as a future album. Woknam66 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- We don't predict events here, even if we sometimes report predictions by others (say, Nostradamus, for example). Speculation about what may or may not happen is best left to journalists and politicians, not encyclopaedists. See WP:CRYSTAL. Now it's not opinion anymore. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- ....But you haven't really answered my question. Is it actually Wikipedia policy to not include confirmed future unnamed albums? So far it sounds like this is really just your opinion, and not actual policy. Woknam66 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You're annoying
Damn inclusionist. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Mut@ge.Mix@ge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mut@ge.Mix@ge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mut@ge.Mix@ge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Scottdrink (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Guidelines at Wikiquette Alerts
It seems like sometimes editors get emotionally tied to discussions. I wanted to remind you that in Wikiquette alerts, it is an entirely voluntary process. Guidelines at the Wikiquette page instruct editors to mark a thread resolved *and* provide a reason, when consensus is reached. Given the nature of the comments, one said "childish", one said "forum-shopping", and one editor outright asked for the thread to be closed, I went ahead and closed it.
- "Remember the aim is to move the dispute towards resolution, and that all helpers are volunteers (therefore the amount of time it may take to receive a response will vary). If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert. If you have not received help and the problem escalates, please edit your alert to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere." - Wikiquette alerts (how to help)
- "All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on the WQA noticeboard. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated. If the situation is severe or has escalated then consider advising the filing party to post at a relevant noticeboard (or you may wish to do this yourself)." - Wikiquette alerts/Volunteer instructions
Now, maybe it was only me seeing it this way, and therefore it was somehow biased or non-neutral, but I didn't see a positive outcome from this Wikiquette alert. To me, the consensus was "drop it, and shut up". So, especially in light of the final comment, I marked the thread resolved *and* provided a reason. I guess I'm just trying to discern how this was really a problem. My impression of who reverted the closure and when, simply leads me to think that everyone was getting a little emotional, rather than letting it drop. Your thoughts? -- Avanu (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have really nothing else to add that I didn't already say via edit summary and comments on the AN/I thread. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Well said. I particularly liked the bit about bashing one's face into the keyboard. → ROUX ₪ 06:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, nomination withdrawn, so I declare victory for the competent! Tarc (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's the exact opposite of how WP works >99% of the time. Weird. → ROUX ₪ 20:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I know the politically-correct, everyone-gets-a-ribbon-if-they-try world that many of you grew up in thinks it's mean to label people failures, but y'know, in real life, sometimes there are. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.; well said. --Errant (chat!) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- A shout-out to my favorite demotivator. Tarc (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I know the politically-correct, everyone-gets-a-ribbon-if-they-try world that many of you grew up in thinks it's mean to label people failures, but y'know, in real life, sometimes there are. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.; well said. --Errant (chat!) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's the exact opposite of how WP works >99% of the time. Weird. → ROUX ₪ 20:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Another interaction ban proposal for Sarek and TT
I have proposed another interaction ban between TreasuryTag and SarekOfVulcan. Since you commented in the last ban discussion that failed to gain consensus I am notifying you of this one. See - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_interaction_ban_between_TreasuryTag_and_SarekOfVulcan_2. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wonderful. Can you go pester some of the other opposers now? Tarc I was trying to have a discussion with you about your position. I'm sorry that you feel that discussions like that equate to pestering. If you want to join a public discussion about something on Wikipedia the outcome of which is based on the arguments presented and may have consequences to the community and to other editors in that community then you should be prepared to discuss your points with others. That's what discussions are about. Also, please note that while I have found your style of discussion rather rude since first encountering it a few months ago, and whether or not I've agreed with your positions and whether or not I've been your interlocutor, I don't go around whining about it. If I'm in a discussion that you are part of and I feel like asking you questions or responding to your points I'm going to do it. Unless of course you have interaction ban between us gain consensus ... in which case I'll be forced not to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Mohmmaed Images Talk page
I just removed your comments on the Images talk page; yes, it's borderline whether it was okay for me to do so per WP:TALK, but in my opinion your comments were needlessly offensive. Feel free to enforce policy; don't make offensive remarks about people's deeply held beliefs just because they don't match what you perceive to be Wikipedia's ethos. 06:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter to me in the end, really; these one-and-done trolls never come back to engage in any actual dialog anyways. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The gallery does not illustrate any racist terms. I used no racist terms in my submissions. Unless you're indicating the entire article is racist. Please explain. You're accusing me without explanation. Please cite the terms of which I am violating. The gallery illustrates, not only the various physical results of mulatto offspring, but the various types of mulatto ancestry, from ambiguous to specific, to recent (or first generation). Unless there is a unanimous consensus, I see this objection as coming from you only, as in your opinion. It's subjective. Please view the bios of each person. With the exception of Cornell West and Vanessa Williams, who are African-American descendants of slaves, all bios indicate specific European and sub-Saharan African recent ancestry or parentage. I'm putting the gallery back up until I'm notified of an official Wikipedia violation, not one based on personal opinion. Please explain to me how that is racist.
Gallery illustrating aesthetic range
The gallery is placed between the 'Colonial Era' and 'Contemporary Era' sub-sections to illustrated the type of mulatto posterity produced by both, regardless of social race labels/classifications applied during these eras. It doesn't matter, they're all American, whether they look white, black, or in between, who are born of mulatto ancestry, or of sub-Saharan/European (Caucasian) parentage. I wanted to included more, because I know there are more, but didn't want to make the gallery to long. I think it's pertinent that people read the article and understand that mulatto isn't just pertinent to a specific range of looks, but it's very broad. I wanted to add more range, using someone like Boris Kodjoe but that individual has no American ancestry. Will likely use him for Germany.
There should be a subsection somewhere discussing the trend of European and continental African dating, offspring and unions that started in the mid-1900s. It's significant, and a huge sub-topic to explore. I came across a thesis about the resulting population in Germany written by a graduate student a couple years ago. The article also doesn't discuss the initiatives taken by the British government to induce mixed race communities in Britain during the mid-1900s, and that the same sort of initiatives to taken by other European governments. People such as Poly Styrene were born from such initiatives.
There is information about 'mulatto' populations in parts of Europe born to these types of unions that should be included. There is a huge population in Switzerland, for example. There is also mulatto 'legacy' ancestry in places like Tanzania where there is a population cognizant and accepting of it. I just hope that you don't work to 'narrow' the perimeters of this topic, because it's not narrow in the least bit.
There needs to be expansion about the mulatto colonial populations of Africa as these people were very influential in those societies and contributed immensely in modernizing those regions (Sherbro clans). These groups helped mobilized some of the intellectual societies in Africa that existed during the colonial era.
Also missing the mention of 'first wave immigration' in the Americas (early to mid 1800s to early 1900) and the interracial offspring that resulted between European males and American women (both in the U.S., Caribbean and Central America) of mulatto, or mixed African descent. Bab-a-lot (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mulatto as applied to a person in the present day is taken as a racist insult, not much better than calling someone a nigger. This is not a negotiable issue; a gallery of living people will not be used in an article about a racist term. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Very well said. There are similar terms, I think "octoroon" is one, that categorize people by their "percentage" of "white" versus "black" blood, whatever that means. Of course these are racist terms in modern usage. This is absolutely a non-negotiable issue. – OhioStandard (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Muhammad
I am from Indonesia and moslem. Almost Indonesian moslem do not agree any picture shown image of Muhammad. It is prohibited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpadli (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe your religion precludes you from viewing them. It does not preclude us from viewing or posting them. So, to help you out, you may wish to view this page[1] where you will learn how to block those images from being shown while you are on Wikipedia. Also, for more information, you may wish to read up on Wikipedia is not censored and the rest of the content on the FAQ link above. Hope that helps. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hi, Tarc. I don't normally issue talkbacks, but my page has seen so much activity lately that I thought you might miss my response User_talk:Ohiostandard#I_am_considering_an_AE_request here, might miss it on your watchlist, otherwise. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, saw it. Not sure what else to say right now on it; mbz is definitely a net negative to the Wikipedia, but she's very crafty about how she denigrates her wiki-opponents, e.g. the now notorious "thank you for being so nice in protecting me from those shitheads" barnstar. An RfC/U is going to be a circus, but it is probably inevitable at this point. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I tend to agree with you about the need for an RFC/U. I just noticed, btw, that her pet essay that she linked to from the AN/I thread, and to which she added her violent hounds image, also now includes this lovely bit, obviously referring to Betsy. (scroll down in diff to see full story) Mbz1 had just commented in the AN/I thread that Betsy referred to her block log on Commons and here. Very mature.
- Do we not have at least one policy that says it's a bad thing to call your fellow editors harpies, or one admin that's willing to enforce it? Especially coming after her infamous barnstar and having interjected the hounds image into Betsy's comment to make it appear that Betsy had put it there... As her pal No More Mr Nice Guy wrote, she does seem to have some kind of wish for a dramatic, self-destructive exit. I haven't mentioned it in the AN/I thread yet, but it does need to be disclosed there. Understand, btw, that I'm talking to you as another editor here, not as an admin. I am absolutely not asking you for any administrative action here. – OhioStandard (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- What the fuck.... Facepalm I'm nominating Wikipedia:Properly follow a proper policy for deletion in a moment, what a scurrilous piece of horseshit that is. Tarc (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hold on a sec, who's an admin here? Are you? Do you think I am? :) Tarc (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did have that impression, yes. No doubt your natural authority and savoir-faire misled me. Try to be more goofy, like most editors here, in the future. To give oneself such airs is hardly seemly. Perhaps you could remedy the impression by putting up a userpage photo like this user... No wait; he's an admin. I'm so confused. – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input on Jimbo's talk page. Are you in a position to make sure action is taken? I was unaware of WP:OFFICE. Yopienso (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
can't put this off any more ...
Tarc, I noticed some of your recent posts in regards to the Santorum issues. I have to say, I'm really impressed. I'm pretty sure your political viewpoints are pretty much diametrically opposed to his. (although I shouldn't make assumptions). Anyway, your efforts certainly speak volumes about your integrity. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how much my respect has grown for you. Cheers. — Ched : ? 19:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) And yea, spot on; I am a proverbial and literal red diaper baby, but this stuff is just complete amateur hour. I know all about Alinksy's "ridicule is a potent weapon", but to work it has to resonate with and be used by the people you're trying to motivate. I get to "a frothy mixture of..." and just start to go "ew". But apart from that, it is simply a fake neologism, created by a journalist and echoed by friendly journalist. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Idea
Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're asking the wrong person; I nominated Said's page for deletion once. Tarc (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:MetallicaWHScover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MetallicaWHScover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kurt Cobain Talk
I proposed an idea that I think would make everyone happy. You should see it at Talk:Kurt Cobain at "Once Again, Punk Rock Edit Warring." Logan The Master (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Fecal Matter" was not a real band, it was kids jamming in their basement for a few months and recording it, badly, to a 4track. It doesn't warrant any listing of "punk" in Cobain's infobox. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Courtesy call
You are mentioned here. Fuhiy (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) Just a bunch of inclusionist BAWWWing from what I can see. I love is when the Rescue Squad thinks that bean-counting their article creations like notches on a bedpost is actually a relevant statistic, it makes me keekle. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Bono
I believe that readers are more interested in seeing their idols houses than some shop so-called 'Bonavox'. I'd rather say you guys don't know what to do with the Bono's article itself as it features a good number of pictures yet. There is nothing "ridiculous" about my picture as also other sources on Wikipedia confirm he lives there (e.g. Dalkey). So in that case you'd have to delete and call "ridiculous" also those sources. I'll upload it to Bono's non-english mutations where I'm sure it will more appreciated. Don't bother to reply Uzerakount (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Errant (chat!) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Contempt
I cannot believe you and SlimVirgin have so much contempt for your fellow Wikipedians and all the time and effort we've put into working on this article. Flatterworld (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I can't believe the phrase "you and Slimvirgin" could ever be applied to a situation involving myself, so, there go. The universe is a strange and wondrous place. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Btw, the "Conservopedia" comment was indeed misplaced. I am so used to arguing with rabid right-wingnuts about Obama, birthers, etc...that it was just reflexive, GTFO type of brush-off. This is a strange topic area. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- And in reply to your latest snark, posted for no reason I can imagine...it is not my problem that SV chose to make her 'inclusive' little post so long AFTER I had clearly quit/resigned. Neither is it my problem that she decided to 'cleanup after herself' by moving her 'hour and a half warning' to a different area with a different name, making it appear she was more 'open and transparent' about it than she actually was. All I did was clarify what happened. You are, of course, free to continue to call me names and compare me unfavorably with whatever you like. That's what the Undo button is for. I simply don't understand why you think I would be interested in reacting to further bullying from you or anyone else. I'm a responsible adult, and I don't play games. That's why I'm out of here. Tell you what - why don't you just declare some sort of victory in that debacle, tack on a bit more fulsome praise for the Admins, and then move on to your next victim? (And that goes for everyone else reading this - nothing to see here, move along.) (Addendum: it occurred to me you perhaps didn't understand the basic point: ongoing discussions should be limited to ongoing Wikipedians. Crossing out, as opposed to deleting, preserves the integrity of the original discussions yet informs others who might perhaps be expecting a reply or further contribution iow, it's being polite and thoughtful of other participants.) Flatterworld (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Your statement at the request for amendment by Mbz1
Thank you for fairly and accurately representing my actions in the May ANI thread. That is all too rare in community discussions these days. Regards, AGK [•] 22:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- No prob. :) I think I've made sure to do that in the several locations/times this topic has come up...no one holds you at fault for the 1-second thing, Mbz just needs to drop the stick, back away, and stop obsessing about how her block log may or may not appear to others. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I've asked the closing admin to decide on a proper title for the arbcom personal attack / leak discussion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Anne Rice
Thanks for your input on the Anne Rice talk page - I could use another pair of eyes on the page, as this new editor seems determined to ram her preferred version through, even against various guidelines about image use and sourcing. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anne Rice cannot be separated from New Orleans. It is woven through all of her books, and it is a large part of what made her famous. Have either of you read her work? This is aon-issue for anyone familiar with her work. Her home, properties, the streets of the Garden District, the purple and red sunsets are lavishly described in her novels. An entire industry of Anne Rice tours sprung up in New Orleans. The pictures shown all figure into her novels. Rather than thoughtful editing, the user MikeWazowski completely stripped ALL referenced biographical material and restored poorly written material. Now, he is calling the pictures decoration. If so, please remove the "decoration" from these author entries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kennedy_Toole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keats
This is clearly sexist. As I asked user MikeWazowski, how many images are allowed for female authors? Agatha Christie is one of the top selling novelists of all time (2 billion copies), only surpassed by Shakespeare. Compare the images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie
Again, I ask, how many images are permissible for female authors - particularly those whose works prominently feature particular settings? Rice has an international following. Fans travel from all over the world to New Orleans to see what she has described in her novels.
Finally, I direct you to this Google search pointing out the problem of the male dominated culture on Wikipedia and the dearth of female editors, of which I am one. I have a B.A. in English Literature and a J.D. Next step for me is to contact the media and all interested parties in the Wikipedia Foundation. Fine to help me to learn the Wikipedia protocols, but trashing my work and the author in the process is a bit too much. Why not try "friendly and helpful" like the female editors? I offer good, documented content. I know the subject matter. stop with the fraternity hazing treatment.