User talk:Before My Ken/archives 7 Sept 2008

ARCHIVE PAGE 7: SEPTEMBER 2008

Theft

You ripped off one of my user boxes??? I will fight you to the ends of the earth!!! Oh, wait... everything on wikipedia user pages is public domain. Never mind. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Great Tagline

Who told you that? JzG? BlackKite? A BC apologist? --Dragon695 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi Ed,

I greatly appreciate (and am beginning to share) your thoughts here on AN/I tonight. Thank you for weighing in. I feel you're right, and I'm so tired of users citing NFCC policy while ignoring other, equally important policies seemingly on a whim. Anyway, just wanted to take the time to say thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Subtle advertisement

You could add subtle advertisement to the list of Wikipedia's woes. See for instance P._W._Bill_Bailey_III, an article which has survived on Wikipedia for more than a year; make sure to check its main editor too... VasileGaburici (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert

Ed, I find the manner in which you edited this article to be objectionable. Perhaps it would be better for you to actually open the article and edit it rather than use the undo button. For one thing, both times you have used the undo button, you have also reverted the italics I have inserted for the name of the film. I even made note of that in the edit summary.

This citation doesn't support the statement that it was a local box office success. Citing an IMDB page which says "Attendance 6,986,788" and no other business data doesn't clarify things. The film was released in six countries within in a three year period and one more six years after the first release. Does this attendance figure include all of those releases? How does a stark figure support the statement that it was a local box office success? The statement isn't supported. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Seven million tickets sold is a box office success by any definition, especially considering that the population of France was about 42 milllion at the time. Sorry about the italics, I'll reinsert them Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Template

Hi Ed. Yes I'd noticed that. It would be best to change the name of the American side templates to Template:Americanfilmlist and redirect Americanfilms to American films for the base plate The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be sorted now The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Try to use American films though just to be "correct". If you splip though it will still show the same. I began adding them to the foot of articles earlier although there are at least 12,000 to do. I think we should get a bot to do it and start working on those year lists and getting them into shape. Any help you can give in filling them in would be welcome e.g American films of 1947 etc The Bald One ^{White cat} 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding it as I come to articles without it, and I'll update other articles to the new version as I edit them as well. If we can get more editors doing the same, the job should be done soon enough. Perhaps a note on the Film Project discussion page would be a good idea? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ann Beattie

Hi. I've removed that image again - I can see where you're coming from, but I can see no way that such an image can pass NFCC#1 (I think it'd struggle even if Beattie was dead). Its use in an article Park City (book) would be more worthy of a discussion, possibly... However, I have contacted two people who have images of Beattie that I found on flickr, so hopefully one of them will come back to me and release an image (I did suggest this courseof action to RedSpruce, but he couldn't be bothered, preferring instead to insult me). I'll get back to you when I get a reply. Black Kite 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait and see what the results of your inquiry are. Thanks for letting me know your thinking. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 13:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyperediting

See [1] for an unrelated example of hyperediting. Basically a single user making dozens or even hundreds of edits consequentially, interspersed by others, which makes accountability almost impossible. Doing it in the context of building up an article for FA/GA is one thing, but doing it to evade scrutiny is a real issue, and one we've had with the user who is the subject of the AN/I. Orderinchaos 02:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a constructed term anyway, I should probably have been clearer :) Orderinchaos 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, same. I got an article to featured article status, Hamersley, Western Australia, and the history of that article in January and February 2007 is dozens of edits by myself. Recently I built up a series of lists, which due to imprecise sources, errors, discoveries along the way etc sometimes needed as many as 18 edits per article over a fairly short period. When I get back to National Party of Western Australia or Colin Jamieson the histories will probably look similar. The method isn't the problem, the purpose is. The particular issue with the user on the AN/I involved edits mainly to Talk, Image talk: and Wikipedia: space. Orderinchaos 03:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My block

I greatly appreciate your work in reverting vandals. And i also understand your concern. But, for the record, I never blocked anyone for creating new talk pages by issuing warnings - and i would never do that. I agree that that would be inappropriate. But I didn't do it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:TLN342 crop.jpg

Just as a reminder, could you please provide some evidence of the public domain status of this image? See WP:CSD I11, which states it may otherwise become a candidate for deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The uncropped version was uploaded by a Wikipedia editor, who took the picture himself. I've updated the summary to make that clearer. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 05:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, given that we're kinda involved, conflict-wise, do you really think it's such a hot idea for you to be dogging my steps? Just saying. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 05:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, no problem in that case. As for watching your steps, well, yes, I am. As per my original response on the RfC, I never make a secret out of it. Not a retaliation for your behaviour on the RfC, but a consequence of what I've seen of you defending bad uploads elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You have some balls, my friend. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've filed this at AN/I. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear diary:

Initial reaction to my post on AN/I is not encouraging: I am accused of being a disappointment and of wikilawyering. (?) Prediction: Soon, someone will suggest that I should take a Wikibreak.

Oh, the cat ate the canary, and boy was Mom mad! I got grounded for a week because I didn't close the door on the cage after I cleaned it out. Oh well, I'll write again tomorrow.

erf

Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear diary:

Oh, oh! I know what comes now!! Somebody barges in, blames all parties equally, and tells everyone to chill out, without in any way addressing my concerns.

BTW, now the cat's dead, apparently from acute gastic distress after eating the canary. Mom blames me for that too. I'll probably never be ungrounded again!.

erf

Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about. Its just that I haven't been here too long. posted by User:Granpuff 21:55, 7 September 2008

Images nominated for deletion

Image:Boy Who Turned Yellow screenshot.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Boy Who Turned Yellow screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC) --J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Battle of the River Plate Finch.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Battle of the River Plate Finch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Steamnboat Bill Jr poster.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Steamnboat Bill Jr poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Age of Consent Mason.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:SBR03.jpg listed for deletion (copied from elsewhere)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SBR03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As per all the images above that are in question, it seems to be a oversimplification to simply label everything that is non-free as "decorative". This appears to be a very subjective standard that is being applied. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC).

Image police

The image police are at work again! I got a message:

== Image:SBR03.jpg listed for deletion ==

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SBR03.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User talk:J Milburn and User talk:Jheald

IfD notifications

According to WP:IFD here discussion pages of articles using the images in question should be notified of their potential deletion. It looks like you may have missed some of these. Jheald (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never done that, I feel it clogs discussion pages too much. I nominate automatically using Twinkle- if you're concerned, I recommend you leave a note for the Twinkle developers, I can't imagine adding those notices would be particularly difficult. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to nominate images for deletion, then follow the protocol. If you don't think the protocol makes sense, then raise it at WT:NFC. If your tools don't let you put in those notifications automatically, then do it by hand. Jheald (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Notifying people is a courtesy. Should I also notify relevant WikiProjects? Should I badger people if they don't reply? People need to judge who to notify and how much notification is needed. If they care that much, they will have watchlisted the item in question. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Notifying people is not just a courtesy. Notifying people on the discussion pages is the protocol. Please follow the protocol. I see I'm not the only person who's unhappy about this.[2] If you think the protocol should be changed, please raise it at WT:NFC. Jheald (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll stop nominating at IfD and go back to more effective methods. Then we can both be happy. J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll stop nominating at IfD and go back to more effective methods

"More effective methods" being what, exactly? Is this some sort of threat? Jheald (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not threatening anyone. I just used to go for less centralised discussion of images, which was generally more effective in terms of removing non-compliant images. I've used IfD over the last couple of days in response to the FPAS RfC, but I've seen enough already to tell me it doesn't work and takes too long. J Milburn (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just used to go for less centralised discussion of images, which was generally more effective in terms of removing non-compliant images. I've used IfD over the last couple of days in response to the FPAS RfC, but I've seen enough already to tell me it doesn't work and takes too long.

Sorry, what is "less centralised discussion of images" ? Jheald (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages, user talk pages and WikiProject talk pages. IfD seems to be very much a vote, where rational discussion has little value. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages, user talk pages and WikiProject talk pages.

Well, that does seem a much better way to go. Much better to get change quietly by discussion and agreement, where possible, than confrontation at WP:IfD. WP:IfD should be a last resort.

On the other hand, WP:IfD is better than what seems to be the practice of some image removalists, viz getting pages edit-locked and then deleting images as orphaned to force their way; which I do not think is a good way to go about things for the long term health and happiness of the project (cf WP:PROCESS). Jheald (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to set this straight, I doubt the "requirement" of giving notice to article talk pages for IfDs is valid at all. That claim was added on the IfD page unilaterally by a user who was frustrated with image deletions some weeks ago, but I'm not sure there ever was a strong consensus for it. It has certainly never become actual practice to treat it as a requirement rather than a recommendation, and since policy texts are supposed to be descriptive of actual practice and not prescriptive, I can't see it's worth much as long as everybody is ignoring it. I agree notifying article talk would in principle be a good idea (in fact, I think we should generally notify article pages instead of uploader talk pages, for various reasons), but as long as it means more work for me, I'm not gonna do it. I'll highly welcome it if somebody bribes the Twinkle developers to add the function. But image cleanup is tedious enough as is already; I'm not going to do yet more paper work manually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise

Ann Beattie.jpg

It appears that you've deleted Image:Ann Beattie.jpg, an image that's part of a dispute in which you're involved. I was wondering if you'd be willing to restore the image and allow a less-involved party to make the deletion decision? I want to emphasize that I don't believe your decision is necessarily incorrect, only that there seems to be a diversity of opinion which would suggest using the deletion process, or at least not deleting the image yourself. What do you think? --SSBohio 04:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no legitimate "diversity of opinion" for me to be "involved" in. The person who last edit-warred for its inclusion explicitly confirmed that he was treating it as a "substitute" for a possible free portrait. This makes deletion mandatory. He then went on with a torrent of drivel claiming that it being a "substitute" didn't mean it was "replaceable" with a free image. The fact that I pointed out this piece of sophistry was self-evident nonsense doesn't make me "involved in a dispute". Three or four admins agreed this was a legitimate speedy deletion candidate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I really do understand your point, and I'm not here to be part of any attack launched by other parties. Personally, I couldn't care less whether the image appears on that article, on another article, or anywhere at all. What concerns me is your involvement with the matter, followed by your deletion of the image as an apparent means of enforcing its removal from the article, however well-intentioned the deletion was.

When I see phrases like torrent of drivel, piece of sophistry, and self-evident nonsense, it weighs against considering this to be an entirely disinterested deletion. Some combination of the presence of the image in teh article and the way the previous editor approached you has, presumably, raised your ire. That's not bad or wrong, but it does create doubt in your subsequent deletion of this image.

I think that the right thing to do, in order to remove that doubt, would be to put the image through a deletion process, such as PROD, CSD, or IfD, and let someone else make the final call. As long as the image is potentially a fair use book cover rather than a copyvio portrait, there will be a diversity of opinion on its appropriateness. I simply think that the way this is handled is important and going through the procedure can reduce confusion and demonstrate consensus for the deletion. --SSBohio 19:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But it was put through the correct process, exactly the one you named: WP:CSD. The rules were followed exactly. CSD is not linked to any conditions of being uninvolved. CSD is meant to be handled by a single admin, so there's no problem if the same admin does all the tagging, removing, orphaning, explaining, hearing and juging of objections, and deleting. That's why it's called speedy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Would you please consider modifying your signature? It's a bit long and non-breaking and that makes it slightly disruptive when it forces a page to be wider than normal just to accommodate your signature. This is occurring [now on ANI] on my machine if you'd like to take a look to see what I'm talking about. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much Ed! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Spacing?

There's a hidden comment in the Dr. Stangelove article that it seems you inserted. I see a big white gap, why don't you want it removed? Maury (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without the spacing there, under Internet Explorer there's no gap at all, and the lede section butts right up against the table of contents, or the external links against the navboxes. Can you tell me what browser you're using? I'd like to check it out and see what you're seeing. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Articlehistory error corrected

Just a note, please scroll to the bottom of the article talk page after altering articlehistory to see if the red error category is lit.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that might have been the case because I couldn't really figure out where that come from :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Spacing on The Godfather

Ah, I see - apologies for removing it then - I'm using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16, and it all looks fine with or without the space there for me (well, I personally though it looked a tad ugly with the space, which was why I removed it, as I do with most articles when I see excess space) ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pertaining to false accusations against Romaioi

Hi Ed,

I am sorry that you became involved in the sockpuppetry/abuse issue concerning me that saw you repeatedly criticized over the past few weeks. There appears to be a large double standard with a few users who feel that some should have the right to abuse or slander with impunity.

I have put a full step-by-step summary of what has occurred on the ANI page [4] (inclusive of the early events that sparked the conflagration). I am not asking for your further involvement – I think its best that you stay removed from it. I am just letting you know to merely highlight that I have summarized all the events, so that can see the facts for yourself, rather than be persuaded by the slander that my accuser put on your talk page some time ago. They disingenuously call the evidence I have presented ranting, I see it as referring to (and assessing) all relevant information. I hope that you can see that it was not necessarily about the slander against me specifically, but the unsuitability editors who want to be policemen yet behave in this manner.

All the best,

Romaioi (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Believers (film)

Impressive work. Thank you. I will be studying the way you set this up as a future reference for my own improvements. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I will trust that editors at the AfD look beyond the long list of non-existant problems and "vote" to keep based upon your terrific improvements in style. Nice job! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will help, maybe not, but I always think it's best if an article looks as much like an article as possible. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree.... which is why I will be making special note of the style improvements. As it is I may have sourced the living "F" out of the darn thing.... but your improvements made it look absolutely slick! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The Boy Who Turned Yellow

Could this image be a better one? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/tomasutpen/Album%202b/TheBoyWhoTurnedYellow.jpg -- SteveCrook (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your warning wasn't retroactive

Just FYI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Criterion Collection essays

Hello Ed. I know that you will see this eventually but I thought I would drop you a note to make you aware that I started this thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Criterion_Collection_Essays at the filmprojects talk page. Collectonian has already replied with a thought that may be of some help. I am not very web savvy so I don't know how to check on his suggestion but I thought that you might know what to do so that is why I am leaving this note. I hope that you are well and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I did see it. I'll look into Collectonian's idea that perhaps the essays are archived somewhere. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See my note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great! Good work. How did you find it? I couldn't find anything on the Wayback Machine. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 06:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I see that you and Wildhartlivie have been busy working on figuring out how to fix things. My thanks to you both. W was kind enough to leave several links on my page to begin to teach me how to track these essays down. I know that we have a bunch of these links on wikipedia's film articles so I will be trying to learn how to fix them. In the meantime please feel free to fix any that you come upon. I left a message on W's page stating that Wikipedia takes a ton of flack (some justifiable) but I think that this is one of those situations that shows its strengths and you and he are a big part of that so thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 08:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, all I've done to is replace the ones that I had deleted after I discovered the problem (plus Grand Illusion that Wildhartlivie provided the link for). After I get a little sleep, I'll tackle some of the others. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 09:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw your post on the filmproject talk page and wanted to say thanks for being so thorough in trying to track down what is going on. I think that it was also nice that they replied to your email. Does this mean that the work that you are doing reworking the links will have to be undone when they fix the essays at their site? Hopefully we will just have to restore the old external link and not create a new one. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only done a couple so far (got caught up in some RL activities), and I think that I might hold off now, since the current links will (presumably) be good once they get their technical problems ironed out. (BTW, I suspect that the "technical problems" may really be something else - like they didn't pay the writers for the web rights for those essays; but that's just my suspicious mind!) If I hear anything else, I'll be sure to pass it on.Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am seeking some advice

I thought I'd run a situation past you. I've seen your comments in ANI, and you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, so I thought I would ask your opinion on a matter.

Recently, I was party to an AfD discussion that was closed contrary to consensus and not really in keeping with the policy or guidelines (and in fact, utilized IAR as a reason for closure, an assessment I think is pretty incorrectly applied here). The admin closed the AfD after just a few hours. Additionally, the admin placed a redirect on the article which effectively deleted the article (which I thought was a pretty darn good one, if I can blow my own horn a bit).

During the filing of the DRV, I undid the redirect so as to place the DRV notice in the article so it could be seen, as per the instructions at DRV. The admin then deleted the article completely, recreating it later as a talk page without history. As you know, this jeopardizes any images in the page.

My question is this: at what point does an admin's behavior and mistakes warrant an AN/I complaint? The admin has the ability to block anyone, and he has threatened me with a block for my placement of the DRV notice. I am unsure how to proceed, because I am not eager to make an enemy of an admin by filing an AN/I complaint, but am pretty sure that nothing short of such is going to bring the behavior more in line. I'd appreciate some input. - Hexhand (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take this for what it's worth: I've had a couple of unpleasant experiences taking what I thought were legitimate grievances about admin behavior to AN/I, and I've read an awful lot of what's been posted there by other people as well, and I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that it is virtually impossible to get relief or satisfaction by bringing a complaint against an administrator on AN/I or AN.

When you think about it, it makes perfect sense, since the people who hang out at AN/I are, by and large, admins or their friends and hangers-on, and it's almost inevitable that, either consciously or without being at all aware of it, they are going to be biased in favor of other admins. When a civilian brings a complaint about an admin, there is a distinct tendency to reject it out of hand as sour grapes or a deliberate attack, and, to a large extent, the wagons get circled.

This is not to say that admins don't come in for their share of criticism on AN/I or AN, but almost invariably it comes from other adminis or those closely associated with them (maybe we should call them "neo-admins"). When this happens, it's then sometimes possible to insert a civilian grievance against that admin and have it be dealt with seriously, but even that is not assured.

Unfortunately, although I've observed this behavior, I haven't yet figured out what alternate methods are efficiacious in getting a grievance against an admin seriously considered. There's no umbudsman, Requests for Comments are virtually useless, and ArbCom will only take serious problems or those involving fairly well-known users. For the middling editor with a problem, there really doesn't seem to be anywhere to go for relief in the kind of instance you outlined.

I'm sorry to be so pessimistic, but that's how I see it. It's quite possible that the best thing to do is to swallow your pride, give up, and move on to something else - easy advice to give, but hard to follow through on yourself, as I well know! I don't know if Wikipedia can or will evolve an institution which gives the civilian editor a fair chance against an admin (I have my theory about why the basis for its foundation makes it hard for it to do so, but I won't do into them here), but I certainly don't see one existing at the present time. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Ed. It looks like the admin relisted the AfD, defusing the crisis - I am guessing when you guys go silent for a while after making a contentious decision, you aren't out playing handball or eating pizza and having a laugh about those silly, short-bus, non-admins. More likely, you all are likely talking about it in IRC so as to not show dissent in the admin ranks, getting feedback/criticism/praise/hot pics of (insert name of hot human here) from other admins. Apparently, it sometimes works. - Hexhand (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not an admin. Never have been, never will be. Sorry if you came here thinking I was one and could help. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i thought you were, but wasn't about to ask for your intervention; that would be kinda skanky. - Hexhand (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch

No offense taken. What really bugged me about it was referring to a quote by the producer of the tv program for the purpose of pointing out that he didn't say anything about the rumor. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Sports

Thanks for the work on Good Sports. I was wondering how long it might take for anyone to realize the article existed! I'll try to find some more sources. In the meantime, thanks. 842U (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Easter egg links

Hi, I reverted your addition of a large number of easter eggs to our article on Philip K. Dick. I don't think they added anything to the article, and, per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, I removed them. I'd be interested if you can point me to any consensus for using these lniks in this way, or if you can give a coherent justification for why you think using links like this improved the article. Thanks and best wishes, --John (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The dates linked were only those significant in each specific field: i.e. released dates of films, publication dates of books, Dick's birth and death. Other dates in the article were not linked. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Can you give specific examples of how these links are supposed to help the reader? I still don't see it myself, but you may well have something in mind which makes sense in terms of the policy I pointed you to above. --John (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: MPDB

Thank you for the heads-up! I've left a comment. Please let me know your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The day we agree on something, I'm buying you a drink. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's a good idea.... Wait a minute!!! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA. Cheers! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image cropping

Hi Ed, I replied on 20yearold's page. I feel a bit strange having a conversation on someone else's page, but in this case, I want him to see my comments. Rossrs (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Those suggestions all sound fine to me. I'm not very clever about adjusting contrast etc. I can crop and that's where my photo-manipulation-abilities end, so if there's anything you can do, that would be great. There are many other images that are candidates for being cropped, and I've already done some. The list given is just the tip of the iceberg, and while I disagreed with most of those, I might possibly have agreed with a different list. Some of the images are the best of what was available at the time, so who knows - a dedicated search to finding a better image of Marlene Dietrich, for example, may turn up something that can be used with minimal effort. I've looked through Commons, and there's a Red Dust image of Jean Harlow that may be a better infobox image. Both Harlow images would benefit from cropping. Joel McCrea is definitely worth a try. The worst that can happen is the resolution will be compromised and we'll decide not to use it, but it's worth a try. I respect your judgement on these matters, so if you think it looks better, chances are, I will too. If not, I'll let you know. Cheers Rossrs (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

They look fine to me. McCrea is a little fuzzy but no so fuzzy as to make the image unusable. I'll see if I can find some other images. The Harlow one isn't really typical of her. She doesn't look like Harlow particularly, and her expression is odd. I'll go through those trailers again - they were (I think) all done during the time I was trying to keep names on the image to make it crystal clear that they'd been taken from the trailer rather than the film. Perhaps any or all of the trailers in question will have something more "typical", less fuzzy etc. I've got to go out for a while, but I'll check later, to see what I can find, and will let you know. Nice work though Ed. Any attempt at improving these is appreciated, and with images it often comes down to experimentation to see if something works better than something else. Rossrs (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Finding better images is more difficult than I thought. I've found one of Harlow, that I like, from Riffraff, which I will upload when I have more time. She looks good, but it's her "brunette" picture and for the infobox, I don't know if it's the ideal image for the quintessential "platinum blonde". I'll keep looking but I won't suggest any time frame. The trailer for Libelled Lady doesn't really give any good images of Harlow. It's all Gable and Loy. Rossrs (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Table of contents margin

Hi Ed. I have the pleasure to inform you that we have now added extra top margin to the table of contents (when on article pages). That is, we have added 0.5em as the margin, that is half a character height, same as the infoboxes use. And we added it in the global MediaWiki:Monobook.css file so all users who use the default skin will see it. That means most logged in users and all IP users.

As far as I understand this idea kind of originated with you, then refined by Wknight94 who suggested it over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Table of contents margin, and then we CSS coders over there refined the suggestion further and today we added it to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. If you want to see the change immediately you might need to bypass your browser cache, since the Wikipedia CSS files are cached in the browsers for up to 31 days. Thus it takes 31 days before all users see the change, but some will see it already today.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Tags

Please stop "relocating" tags on articles to special "tags" sections at the bottom of the page. This is highly inappropriate. This violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style and all existing guidelines. Clean up tags go "at the top of the article—before other templates, disambiguation links, images, or infoboxes", not hidden away down at the bottom of articles. I've gone ahead and undone the instances I spotted, and am politely asking you to self-correct any other articles you have done this too. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to come here and express your views, I appreciate it - however, I entirely disagree with you. To begin with, "guidelines" are just what they say, guidance to editors, the collective wisdom of Wikipedia editors through the years (or at least those who bothered to weigh in on the particular subject of the guideline), and as such they should be treated respectfully and considered with great weight. They are not, however, absolute rules to be followed without deviation under all circumstances, and they are certainly not dogma to be followed without question. Editors are expected to use their intelligence and judgment in editing Wikipedia, and not robotically follow a preset list of unbreakable rules.

Secondly, the problem with cleanup tags, such as the ones that you noticed that I had relocated, is that they are essentially internal memoranda from one editor to other editors regarding the one editor's evaluation of the state of the article. This is, of course, a worthwhile and helpful thing, but, unfortunately, placing the cleanup tags at the top of the page puts them directly in the way of the readers, the people we are supposed to be making this encyclopedia for. The readers, who have come here to get some information from a quick and (hopefully) reliable source, have no interest in knowing the information in those tags, those internal memos between editors. The analogy I've used before is of opening a printed encyclopedia, and finding it covered with post-it notes, each with messages about the writing and assembling of the article. While it might be fascinating in its own right, it most certainly would get in the way of retrieving the information you're looking for, and that, visually, is exactly what cleanup tags at the top of the page does to our readers, our customers.

Now, obviously, there are tags that provide information that would be of use to the reader, those which warn about POV and global scope, for instance, but the problem with these is that they are frequently abused, stuck on the article by one editor, with great frequency not supported by discussion on the talk page, as is required, and not removed from the page because of the general belief that it is not allowed to remove tags. So, by inertia alone, articles remained tagged many times even when there is not great consensus regarding those tags. In this way, they, too, are problematic.

So, I move tags from the top of the page because they are, in the purest sense, disruptive, not for editors, but for the users of the encyclopedia. In my opinion, these internal memoranda shouldn't be on the article page in the first place, they should be on the talk page, the place where editors talk to each other about the article. To increase visibility, an icon could be placed on the upper right corner of articles that have tags, which would alert editors that there are tags to be found on the talk page - or, perhaps tags should go on a new tab for them. There are a number of possibilities, but the one that is immediately available to us is to drop them to the bottom of the page, with a section header so that they show up in the ToC, and this is what I do.

Now, I don't expect you to agree with everything I've said here, but I hope you recognize that what I do isn't meant to harm Wikipedia in any way, it's meant to help improve it as a resource for the people we're supposed to be serving, and still preserve the functionality of the tags. If you have any thoughts of your own about how the system of tagging could be improved, different from my own, or perhaps modifications of my thoughts, I'd be very happy to hear them. If you an interest in hearing any more of my ideas on this subject, I would direct you here, and, on the same page, there are further thoughts about the distinction between guidelines and rule here.

Thanks again for making your thoughts known to me. Best, Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your idea, however, is in disagreement with consensus. Its been discussed many times before and it is found to be disruptive to move the tags simply because you don't like their appearance. If you wish to change this, you should change the guideline first, not just decide to implement your personal beliefs against wide standing consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good God, I've hated long, drawn out posts ever since LGRdC rambled on and on...(ending long rant because I'm really tired and annoyed, and I send my apologies to you Ed) In any case, Ed, you're trying to ignore practically all consensus on the matter, as well as current practice. Just place the tags at the top of the page, fix the problem Collectonian is outlining (as whatever she does outline is usually a problem with the article and addressing it only helps the article), and the tags go away. As it stands right now, it's a bit pointy to do move the tags against current consensus on the matter, and yes, I know you believe this is wrong, but just fix the problems and the tags go away and we're all happy. Now, hopefully off to bed after I finish this last paragraph of my paper... sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed, with all due respect for your wisdom and contributions, I would like to suggest that one of your assumptions is not right. While I agree wholeheartedly that neither guidelines nor conventions are to be slavishly followed, the location of tags at the top is intended to tell the reader the article is essentially based on the authority of the author and editors of Wikipedia alone, and anything in such an article should not be taken as being correct. Therefore they are not "internal memoranda" from one editor to other editors regarding the one editor's evaluation of the state of the article, but are put directly in the way of the readers, the people we are supposed to be making this encyclopedia for so the the readers, who have come here to get some authoritatively sourced information from a quick and (hopefully) reliable source that are missing, have an interest in knowing the information in those tags advises on the information assessment by Wikipedia compilers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I've come here to ask you to stop doing this as well. Please stop. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Folks, thanks to all for your input, please be assured that I'm not ignoring you, real world consideration are constricting my editing a bit tonight (and as well my capability for coherent thought!). I'll have responses after some consideration. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry to let this go so long. I do appreciate the arguments being made here, but I also disagree. I've thought considerably about mrg3105's claim that the tags are not, in fact, internal memoranda, but I don't really think it holds water for most of the reference/citation cleanup tags (as opposed to neutrality tags etc.) I believe what readers want is reliability, and that they are not particularly interested in how that reliability comes about. Wikipedia has its mechanism for insuring reliability, and those tags deal with the internal workings of that mechanism, i.e. cites are better than no cites, lots of cites are better than fewer cites, in-line cites are better than reference list, etc. I can't see that the normal run-of-the-mill user of Wikipedia really cares about any of that - and those who do care will be just those people who check out the referencing of an article by going to the end, where they will see the tags if I've relocated them there. So, overall, I think this is a weak argument against tag relocation, at least for those variety of tags.

The other primary argument made is that I'm editing against consensus, and that I ought to try to get consensus changed as a first step before attempting this kind of thing. To this, I would point out there are a number of ways to get consensus changed. One is a straight-forward frontal attack -- just go over the top and throw everything you've got against the fortified line of consensus. Well, I've tried that on a small scale and, like the generals of World War I, I learned that such attempts to shift deeply entrenched opinions in this manner are almost certainly doomed to failure. (I believe I learned the lesson a little faster then the generals did, though.) There are other ways to go about it which are less confrontational, and rely on persuasion-by-example instead of direct argumentation. I believe this is a primary reason that we have a rule like WP:IAR, to allow new ideas a chance to live long enough to put out roots and grow: the idea being that the more people see the new idea in action, the more people will accept it as a viable option. Of course, it also means that discussions such as this are inevitable, as people committed to the old order raise objections.

So, basically, my response is that the relocation of tags is well within the normal course of Wikipedia's mode of operation, is justified by the positive advantage to the reader, is not intended to disrupt but to improve Wikiepdia, and is allowable under one of our most basic principles.

I look forward to your comments and responses. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 17:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, see my comments here. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary issues

Hi, Treybien here with some of the responses you requested. First of all, I apologize about delinking the film years; I misunderstood the difference between a "film year" and "regular year" entry in terms of wikipedia policy. As far as your other complaints are considered, however, I must respectfully disagree: the "legitimate language" you cited was, in most cases, inappropriately flowery (see tone policies), and I would contend that the changing of such is a minor edit (although I would be willing to write something like "edited grammer" in the summary section). Treybien 16:33 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Zulu (film)

Ed, I have reverted your reverts on the punctuation of US in this article. I fully appreciate that in American English the abbreviation is U.S. and I always respect that in American articles. However, Zulu is an entirely British film and the article is written with British English spellings and punctuation. Along with the rest of the world we abbreviate it as US and will continue to do so until WP:MoS changes its conventions. I am sure the abbreviation will look odd to you, as will the spelling of many common words but I hope and trust you can relax and get used to it. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just gone through the article, and I didn't come across any instances of BE spelling -- I may have missed them, can you please point them out to me? And, if you don't mind, please drop the condescension, I'm quite used to British English spellings and don't go around reverting them. (I have, in fact, with some frequency, reverted people trying to put in wholesale changes to convert from BE to AE spelling.) However, since the United States abbreviates itself as "U.S.", other English-speaking countries ought to honor that choice, if only as a matter of courtesy.

I look forward to your list of instances where BE spellings have been used in the article, to establish that it has been written in that style. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that request, another look brought up "behaviour" and "honour". I was quite aware that Zulu is a British film about a British subject, albeit a film written by an American. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL no problem. I just sent a long message and lost it in an edit conflict with yours. It is 4am here in the UK and I am bushed, cannot be bothered to recompile my message now, will do so tomorrow. I just found an "organize" that needs to transmogrified into "organise", but again it can wait till I have slept. Kind Regards across the pond....and no condescension was intended by the way, I am just typing tired. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem here. Cheers from an American Anglophile. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Morning Ed, I am rested and alert at last. The post I sent that was lost in an edit conflict indeed pointed at the spelling of behaviour and honour. I had also spotted a few AE spellings such as realizing, organizes and criticizing that I have now corrected. I sort of take your point about a courtesy of acknowledging an abbreviation of U.S. although I have to point out that America stands alone here in the face of the whole of the rest of the world. If WP:MoS ever changes its guidelines I would fall in line instantly. MoS has several other guidelines that jar greatly with my linguistic sensibilities but I always follow them regardless.

Some of "your" American spelling differences make me laugh outloud at times and it must confuse the hell out of your school students when they come accross "proper" spelling in books and on the internet, although the "textspeak" generation on both sides of the pond probably don't even notice these days. If you and I could come back in 100 years I doubt if we would even recognise our shared language. Anyway I have a shed load of vandalisms on my watch list to attend to, I am sure we will bump into each other again on our travels. Cheers 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, here is a new "American" word I am struggling with - "Duphases". I cannot find it in any online encyclopedia but it is cropping up more and more frequently in teenage vandalisms and some online blogs. It is used in the sense of "idiots", particularly deprecated people in authority. My only guess is that it is an attempt by illiterate teenagers to spell the plural of "Doofus" but that would be pretty obscure, any other ideas? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are correct, that "duphases" is meant to be "doofusses", which (at least by the evidence of my 9-year-old son), is still in circulation here in the States.

On your other point, I think perhaps we've entered an era of variable spellings, similar to those periods in the past where the spelling of words was up for grabs and could, indeed, be different even within the same text written by the same person – and it's a phase we could be in for a suprisingly long period of time. On the one hand, you've got the polyglot melting pot of the Internet, where many varieties of English usage and spelling butt up against each other (including non-majoritarian styles from speakers of English as a second or third language), which has the effect of loosening things up, while working against that you have the effect of spell-checkers which tend to keep "high"-language (if I can use that term) on the straight and narrow. It could be that the end result of that might be a standarized world English spelling which is neither exactly American English nor British English, but something in-between.

Myself, I'm sort of toying with the idea that Wikipedia might want to adopt a different standard, that rather then some articles being AE and some BE, perhaps all articles should accept both spellings, with the changing of spellings from one variant to another being strictly prohibited. After all, I have no problem understanding "honour" or "realise" and I've sure you have no difficulty understanding "color" or "organize" when you come across them. There are some other vocabularly differences (lift/elevator, lorry/truck, flat/apartment) but, for the most part, I don't see these are problems either, and the more they are used, the more peple build up a context for them. I don't see any real compelling reason that there must be absolute consistency within an article, since there's no real comprehension problem getting in the way.

In any case, I've got no plans to edit war over US/U.S. -- and I'll point out that I've been known to use "US" myself in situations where space is a premium and the extra periods (full stops?, is that right in this context?) just get in the way. To be honest, I didn't actually realize that "US" was standard in non-American English, which is why I went and made the change. I'll try to be more flexible in the future. Best, Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea when it changed. When I was in school 40 years ago *sheesh* all abbreviations had full stops in them, but by the time I started surfing the internet approximately 1996 the stops had pretty much universally vanished from spelling etiquette. But when in the intervening 30 years the change happened and how....your guess is as good as mine. Duphases??? my heart sinks for the integrity of a beautiful descriptive language.

Oh yes, an aside relating to spellcheckers. Back in my days as a Squadron Leader in the RAF I had a colleague of the same rank in the neighbouring territory, a lovely guy but verry disclecsic (sic) and his letters and reports caused everybody to either cringe or crease up. One day he bought a PC with a spell checker and his writing suddenly improved beyond recognition. Unfortunately spell checkers have an "add" function and he started coming across words he just "new" were spelled differently so he changed them. After nine months the PC was dissleksic as he was. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the guy needed a secretary! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Marlene Dietrich

There is no consensus to overlink articles this way. I have undone your changes. Please take it to either article talk or project talk. Thanks. --John (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is longstanding consensus within the film project that released dates of films are linked to "year in film". There is, also, no consensus whatsoever to rfemove them. If you want to make that argument, please take it to talk. This is not overlinking. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries won't suffice. As I said, either show me the consensus to link this way, or try to create one. --John (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a comment on the talk page -- let's have this discussion there, please. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)