I mentioned this briefly at the meetup. There is a public talk at Mill Lane Lecture Rooms about Internet regulation: Lecture and discussion on The Challenges of Regulating the Internet, Mill Lane Lecture Theatre 9, starting 5.30 pm this Friday 17 February. I have been sent an abstract:
The Internet enjoyed a childhood largely over-looked by policy makers—a “light regulatory touch”. But as its impact on the economy and on society grows, policy makers are now looking to develop new regulatory models. In doing so, they face not only the obvious challenge of keeping pace with technological change and its impact on the society, but also the conflicting advice of third parties. This leads to two questions: what should be the new models; and can they be enacted.
The speaker is Simon Hampton, Director of European Public Policy, Google. There is a dinner afterwards, at which I'm a guest. There will be some students there, undergraduate and postgraduate, and I'll mail you so you have some idea who should be coming. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protecting Romania for a longer period this time. But would it be possible to protect if for even longer periods or permanently? In the past, it was IP vandalized immediately after the protection expired. I understand that we don't want to block good contributors who simply don't have an account, but the article history doesn't look encouraging and it is an important article (for WP:ROMANIA at least). We are hoping to bring it back to WP:GOOD and ideally WP:FEATURED. Thanks and regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deryck Chan. You have new messages at Codrinb's talk page. Message added 20:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Thank you for warning number 7 (etc) re the Sword and Sandal piece. I've noticed quite a lot of heat on the talk page of the subject.Foofbun (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is only a single Keep proponent, and four editors advocating deletion. Why was this relisted even once, let alone twice? Ravenswing 06:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The right answer is to switch archives 13 and 14, the chronology will be broken anyway, but that would be the closest. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My edit's purpose was essentially a keyhole solution that pre-empts the bot from editing archive 14 when 13 becomes full. I think some conversations in archives 13 and 14 happened in parallel anyway, so there's no way to preserve chronology completely - the real culprit is whoever moved the archive in the first place! Deryck C. 18:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin and you are, so can you do it please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything else really needs doing, and certainly nothing that needs admin permission? Deryck C. 11:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite perplexed by your decision at Requests for page protection - [1]. I would seriously suggest you look at the article and its history and you will see there is no possible chance that this is a genuine content dispute and not non-sensical vandalism.
The first time they added it is on 12 July 2011 and it contained a lot of other nonsense spam - reverted by Asarlaí. Still a genuine content dispute and not disruptive spam?
Considering that revert, the following reverts by different editors have been done:
Thank you. I hope the IP editor will learn at some stage to stop re-adding this pointless piece of nonsense into the article, however i fear they won't... Mabuska(talk) 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deryck:
Thanks for your help on the Jay Jason page. I did the citation error check you suggested and received this message below. I wonder if my references have now been corrected? Let me know what you think?
Citation error report
No errors found
--Jaytribute516 19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs)
Hi Deryck, I notice you indicated in your ROC move vote that there's a 'clear divide' between usage of ROC and Taiwan. This seems to conflict with the wealth of sources available, including the fairly persuasive GIO press releases where Taiwan is used as a clear synonym for the country. If Taiwan Island or Taiwan Province didn't have recent presidential elections, and 'Taiwan' only refers to one of those two things and not the country, why would the GIO's official press release on the elections refer to "Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections"? I'm not clear on how your position matches the evidence already provided in the case. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that Taiwan is used exclusively and ROC isn't used at all. Rather, the ROC government seems to use both interchangeably, even in the same article. See the following examples:
"In this period, Taiwan has proposed many important initiatives to the APEC membership, leading to some impressive achievements" - GIO Minister Philip Yang [2]
"Taiwan's favorable rankings in several recent reports issued by global economic thinktanks are votes of confidence in the nation's resilient economy and robust competitiveness" - GIO Minister Philip Yang [3]
In praising the MOFA officials for their efforts, Ma also urged them to continue bolstering Taiwan's national image (emphasis mine) - [4]
"Perhaps it is time that people figure out who is responsible for the hardships they suffered the past few years and the hollowing-out of Taiwan's economy" - Yiin Chii-ming, in reference to the national economy [5]
"Taiwan's experience in transitioning from an authoritarian state to a democracy shows that reform, while not painless, is certainly no disaster." - President Ma Ying-jeou, making clear reference to Taiwan as a political state[6]
The premier said besides issuing a strong protest to the Philippines and recalling Taiwan's representative to the Philippines [...] - provinces and islands don't have international representatives, countries do [7]
Premier Wu commented that APEC is one of the most important organizations for Pacific Rim nations and is an important platform for Taiwan to promote both bilateral and multilateral cooperation. - This article also has several other references to 'representatives of Taiwan' in a meeting of countries [8]
"Taiwan ranks as the eighth most competitive economy among the 58 countries surveyed" - President Ma Ying-jeou [9]
"Taiwan and China should engage in comprehensive dialogue to seek mutual understanding and economic cooperation" - President Ma Ying-jeou [10]
"Although Taiwan has made impressive sociopolitical progress over the last decades, it is still a young democracy", "as the elected president of the Republic of China, I will continue to strive toward forging Taiwan into an exemplary democracy", "I want every Taiwanese when they walk in the streets of New York, of Paris, of Sydney, of Beijing that they are respected. People will say they are from Taiwan, and that Taiwan is a respectful country in the world." (emphasis mine) - President Ma Ying-jeou [11]
"North Korea and Taiwan are the only nations that have not participated in the integration process" - President Ma Ying-jeou [12]
Surely you would agree that sentences like "Taiwan is a respectful country in the world" and "North Korea and Taiwan are the only nations that have not participated" are clearly and unambiguously using the term Taiwan to refer to the country? Do you have an explanation for sentences like these, from the ROC President no less, that would be consistent with your statement that there is a clear divide between the terms "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" in English usage? This simply doesn't seem to be the case from my point of observation. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on 'sweeping generalisations' because I don't think that's fair to the supporters of this proposal thus far. If you agree that those last two references "both allude to a divorce of the country / nation from the political entity that represents it" then I'm not clear what your objection to the move is. A separation of country (the political state Taiwan) and her government (the ROC) is exactly what we're trying to achieve with this move. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr C. After being blocked for 16 hours 71.190.53.202 redid the entire Sword and Sandal page again without any conversation on the matter. Can you help please? Thank you.Foofbun (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. Kind of sad the person won't come out, I'd like to do more with the article with references etc but he had a history of just reverting to a version he or she liked and wouldn't converse on the issue. Foofbun (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's at it again! Can you please revert the article and consider blocking 71.190.53.202. Thank you.Foofbun (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for being so fast and effective! "Who was that masked man? I wanted to thank him..."Foofbun (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. [13] IMO it's meaningless to protect or semiprotect all these lists. What is needed is a general policy applicable to all similar lists, articles and categories. 218.250.159.95 (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see that you deleted the Critical Animal Studies page. Critical Animal Studies (I am not affiliated with the org in any way) is a developing but legitimate area of theoretical inquiry in academia, and as such your deletion seems to infringe greatly on intellectual freedom. I understand if users had critiques of the page as it existed, but I suspect that many do not have a sense of how academic fields actually develop (someone cited a lack of reference to CAS in the NYT and the Chronicle, for example: an observation that does not bear on the legitimacy of the theoretical approach in any measurable way). Further, a developing discipline's society or professional organization often does initially work collaboratively to define the scope or the types of questions pertinent to the field. They do this because there IS NO PRECEDENT, and in time as the concept gains greater traction, its applications and meanings will naturally exceed the scope of the association itself. This move feels a lot like censorship and curtailment of intellectual freedom, accidental though it may be. Further, I wonder, because I noted that some who spoke in defense of the page were asked to excuse themselves based upon their affiliations, I wonder if those lobbying for deletion were similarly vetted for possible interests in industries and practices that CAS subjects to critical interrogation? Also, apologies if I posted this in the incorrect place: I'm a newb at this sort of thing.
Gramsci3000 (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Took a closer look at the Institutes webpage, and I agree with critics who said the text of the wiki page was too similar to the Institute's, but CAS is still a critical theory and should have a page. I think it's a mistake to wipe out the page altogether.Gramsci3000 (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the road itself is notable, it is going to be counterproductive to kill the article just because of its current state and to recreate it later from scratch. The block was disturbing. I don't change my IP address to evade the ban as John Smith claimed. I didn't even know I was blocked. I got no notification. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. If the first ban was because of false positive, the second ban was neither reasonable. 202.189.98.135 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be bother to go through all those troublesome procedures. All I want to do is to reinstate my remarks at Talk:Republic of China. 202.189.98.140 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deryck. Just letting you know that due to a range block instituted from SPI, the Hong Kong university regular we've had at Talk:Republic of China has been forced to create an account, User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick. I've done my best to be polite and give him as neutral advice as possible, but he's come out of the gates with fists flailing, so to speak, and I've probably bitten back in response. I'd appreciate your eyes on his talk page and his contributions at Talk:Republic of China, as I think he's been dancing a dangerous line in terms of continuing to edit war over the talk page comments made by the 147 IP address you're familiar with from the SPI case that he claims as his own. I think he's taken the hint now, but I imagine my commentary has probably been overly firm or harsh and I think the situation could benefit from a diplomatic second pair of eyes. I think you're in the best position to do so. Much appreciated. – NULL‹talk› ‹edits› 12:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deryck Chan, can you please give the page on Race in hip hop to me as a draft so I may continue working on the page? I believe it may be possible that it can be a page on Wikipedia again, so I'd like to work on it as a draft before placing it once more. Even if it cannot become one again, can you please still give me the page as a draft? Thank you, TomUSA 20:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deryck: You have made many helpful suggestions and edits to the “Jay Jason” article. Much work has been done on Wiki references, and I wonder if you would be willing to take one more look at them.
Since the original posting of Jay Jason in early Jan. 2012, the article has been improved with the help of 24 postings by Wiki helpers. There have been 13 different Wiki people who have contributed ideas, suggestions, new references, and made important editorial changes including the following: Vegaswikian1, Location, Lenin and McCarthy, Helpful Pixie Bot, MikeWazowski, Gene93K, GregoryB, Deryck Chan, Djassso, Alansohn, JL-Bot, Bearian, and Daryl005.
As an example, Alansohn added this important documentation which I had not been aware of: "My Favorite Jokes", Parade (magazine) in The Modesto Bee, November 10, 1963. Accessed January 27, 2012. Alansohn concluded that “notability is established based on the sources provided; this is a perfect example of an individual who was well known in his day but for whom online sources are sparse”.
In addition, I am pleased to see on the talk page, that three people have made comments including:
Mark Perelman who wrote: “Very interesting. I like the jokes.”
Chinesegal009 who wrote: ”I am Chinese and I watched Jay Jason's wiki page and the tapes on Youtube. Jay Jason is a great comic and Chinese people really enjoy his jokes. Thanks for putting this on the site. If I can help with references, I will try.--Chinesegal009 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)”
Daryl0005 who wrote: “I know of the era of the Catskills lively entertainment, and it is remarkable to capture one of its most beloved comedians of those times.--Daryl0005 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)”
Is it possible that the statements at the top of the “Jay Jason” page might be reconsidered at this point: “Its references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject.”
Thank you again for all your suggestions that have contributed to the improvement of this article.--Jaytribute516 13:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs)
Many thanks, and your support has been much appreciated. I have learned quite a lot in the preceding months.--Jaytribute516 17:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs)
There was a new note put at the top of the "Jay Jason" page today. I have tried to summarize all the many people who have contributed to this page over the past few months. Do you have any idea of what I might do next, as I have tried to justify the statements on the site with multiple references, and even others have added to them--Jaytribute516 22:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs)
I have now posted the material below on the Jay Jason talk page. Let me know if this is appropriate to quote and cite Wiki materials for others. It seems like my writing about my dad could be OK as long as I admitted this, which I have now done, and have backed up the statements with citations, and had others participate in the editing, which many have. Here is what I put on my talk page. Again, thank you so much for helping me through this learning curve--Jaytribute516 13:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I have looked over the guidelines on conflict of interest, and I would like to mention that Jaytribute516 is Leonard Jason, the son of Jay Jason. So, clearly, I have posted material about my dad, who died over a decade ago. When I developed my first essay, I was rather new to Wiki, and learned through many suggestions for Wiki editors to support statements. I also was provided many sources of information from 14 different people, who all made some changes or suggestions. For example, as noted above, Alansohn, added: "My Favorite Jokes"], Parade (magazine) in The Modesto Bee. Alansohn also made me aware of the google news, and doing a search on that allowed me to provide references to many other statements such as Jay Jason performing in Australia and other places. Material on Kramer was sent to me by someone who had read the Wiki article, and I then added it, and the citation. Deryck Chan in particular worked with me to reformat the references so that they would be in accordance with Wiki guidelines, and he also helped me in reorganzing labels and sections throughout. I am very grateful for this editor's contributions. Chinesegal009 and Daryl005 helped the article with re-arranging sections so that they were more logical and flowed better. I thank them. I also had contacts with 4 librarians at different institutions that worked with me to provide documentation of different statements, and to them I am most thankful. So, although I put the initial article together, there have been over 10 different people who have added suggestions or references or ideas, and these are documented on the history page. I might add that at least 15 other people have provided me information over the past few months, and many of these people were not familiar with Wiki editing, so I took their ideas or references supplied and added them to the article. I hope that his does provide some account of my part in the composition of this article. I have also checked conflict of interest guidelines and provide them below so that others can be more familiar with them, as I certainly was not when I began this process--Jaytribute516 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
From Wiki guidelines that Jaytribute516 is citing for others to see:--Jaytribute516 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC) "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously. Close relationships Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower, and collaborator of Marx. Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area. The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse, and a biography should preferably not be written by the subject's spouse, parent, or offspring. However, an expert on a given subject is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
One last issue that has been brought up has to do with this point, having a neutral point of view, and again I would like to quote from Wiki so that others who see this page can understand what this means--Jaytribute516 13:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC) "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs)
I apologize; the IP was a sockpuppet of Instantnood, and I was doing a mass rollback. His socks are extremely disruptive, and become about 100 times more disruptive if his edits to mainspace and talkpages are allowed to stay, ergo he's banned; in hindsight, I should have checked to make sure he hadn't edited user talkpages, as I agree they should be left for each individual user to decide what to do with. Noted for the future. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my long notes above but have been looking to see if you have had a chance to comment on the new notice at the top of the page. Again, appreciate any help or thoughts on this. Best regards--Jaytribute516 17:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs)
I've just started something new that I'm hoping you can help with: User:Ohconfucius/Property developers in Hong Kong. The scope is undefined except in my head; it may not be clear yet where I am aiming to take this, but any assistance or comments would be appreciated. Cheers, --Ohconfucius¡digame! 15:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally attempt edits on such pages but it seems only fair if the height and weight of the alleged victim are included then the same information should be included for the accused perpetrator. Much is being made about the fact that Martin was 6"3" in the media. Zimmerman's height is contained in the police report linked to on the page (interestingly the figures for Martin are different from the numbers listed). I have also read that Zimmerman weighed 250 lbs (believable based on his photo) but can find no credible link. Just FYI. Sadowski (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can make such changes. But that's not my point. Biographical pages are entirely beyond my specialty. I would prefer someone else exercise their strength. In any case as I see now my initial complaint is moot.Sadowski (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You protected this article til April 30th this year, it will need to be edited long before that. Can you please reduce the edit protect to next Monday (April 2) at 9pm ET when build for the PPV will begin? CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 01:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the PPV articles are written in the wrestling project, notability is established when build starts, usually the Monday after the previous PPV, this is when the WWE (or other promotion), and reliable wrestling news sites start to cover the event, the build and the event itself. The most resent example of this is WrestleMania XXVIII which has been built as information has come out since April 2011. The event is notable, and should be started as soon as build begins. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 19:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deryck Chan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Geonotice. Message added -- Trevj (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I wanted to follow up on your decision to not semi-protect the Library.nu page. You suggest seeking dispute resolution, but the edits in question are by anonymous users whose IP addresses change. How do I contact an anonymous user to have a dialog? If I post something in the talk page and no one responds, but the questionable edits continue to happen, what then?
I would be happy to seek dispute resolution once I have an actual person to talk to. As far as I understand, semi-protection would prevent anonymous editing. If this user feels strongly about this article, he or she can create an account, and then we can actually discuss the issue. --Haydenmuhl (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
