User talk:Hobbes Goodyear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cent's fifth studio album (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hey, thanks for pointing out on the AFD that the article was changed to a redirect - if you hadn't, it would likely have gone unnoticed that the AFD tag's internal link was incorrect. Good work! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Vascan[edit]

Hi. FYI, I've added six identical articles to this AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request of a compilation album[edit]

FYI: I had placed speedy A9 requests on this and the similar "Autumn 2011" article, but was rejected because the performers of the tracks have articles (lack of an artist article being a requirement for A9). This seems to me like one kind of article A9 was meant to address, so I may write a proposal to expand A9 to include non-notable compilation albums. Cmprince (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If you do, I'd be interested in looking at it. There are notable multi-artist comps that belong in WP (I own a few myself), so I'm not sure that I see a good rule of thumb to distinguish. But if you can, let's get it in there. Thanks for the update. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Cardigans[edit]

Thanks for the touch up. Made my original change, earlier today, because I agree with you that Lovefool deserved a more prominent position in the opening section. You have improved that edit smartly. Jmg38 (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, communal effort, and all that. They have loads of great songs that merit spotlighting, but "Lovefool" really does stand apart as concerns their notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Recreation of Misty Medley, a CSD A9 you closed in 2009[edit]

Re your message: Nice work on creating the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol[edit]

Love it. Basalisk inspect damageberate 01:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks much. Hopefully, the numbers of the amused + the motivated-to-prove-me-wrong will exceed the merely annoyed. Even given this opportunity to make an ass of myself, which you have so kindly afforded me, I suspect this AfD will end in "no consensus", which is why I didn't come whingeing to you lot straight away. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Boil a Frog[edit]

Good start. Taking up where you left off, I did additional work on How to Boil a Frog [1] to separate the information about the film from the extraneous information about the official website. I think we have an improvable article (more to do)... if about the award-winning film itself.... and everything under the article section header How to Boil a Frog#Website will be soon removed so editors can better judge an article about a film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for input on Jonathan Dory[edit]

Thank you for your input and your detailed consideration of the Jonathan Dory article. It's one of a long series of articles I have been writing about aquanauts who have served as NEEMO crew members. However, the articles also need to comply with WP:N and WP:BIO. For several other articles I have found multiple independent sources, including information about the subjects' achievements and activities other than NEEMO (see, for example, Craig McKinley and Jessica Meir). However, I agree that there is a lack of independent third-party sources on Dory. I have added one more citation to the article, the Army Space Journal article, but that source is primarily about Jeffrey Williams's participation in NEEMO 3 and refers to Dory only once. Gildir (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Ann McWilliams[edit]

As someone who received offsite (local command) DEOMI Equal Opportunity training, tasked with coverage of Women in the Military during Women's History Month, I remember when the Army's active female flag officers could be counted on one hand. Then two. Without a complete stack of Army Times, Stars and Stripes (newspaper), & Army magazine (by the Association of the United States Army), I'd find it difficult to cite their routine promotion & assignment coverage, let alone say she was 1 of only ___, but there really were not that many, and Dunwoody made 4 star after I left. Dru of Id (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

2008, all services, five years after she her nomination. Dru of Id (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Warning, annoying adverts progress is slow. Dru of Id (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I take your point that she was pretty high, pretty early for a female U.S. general officer, and I imagine she would have garnered at least routine coverage in one or more of the publications you note, but even if you could find a few paragraphs in Stars and Stripes, I don't really see that making a difference. It just seems that her career--purely as a military career--was not notable, in a WP sense--notability being a separate issue from the value of her contributions to society. And the fact that her being a female major general seems to have made hardly a ripple in the larger world might be judged a positive, yes? "Female general? <Yawn>, no big deal," is, ultimately, where the Army would like to be, right? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for catching the copyvio at Simone Bemporad! Knowing that it was created by a PR company, I should have known to check for such laziness! SmartSE (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure. Am actualizing your gift as I write this. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

meyhem[edit]

i can understand if you've lost interest, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meyhem Lauren has been re-opened, if you'd like to clarify if "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" has been met, or perhaps why "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" is not an adequate yardstick even if it has been met. I am somewhat puzzled by attitudes to the sources in that AfD as a whole, so any help is appreciated. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway (song)[edit]

I've closed the AfD as keep. Please go ahead and improve the article with the sources you've found. Deryck C. 22:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Please explain why Acalamari and Ryulong might consider the following as personal opinion when I added it to Power Rangers Samurai, even though anyone who watches the show can see it is a fact not a personal opininion.: Strangely enough for a group of samurai, they are all basically gaijin even their sensei/shogun is portrayed by a New Zealander, for none of them are full blooded Japan-born Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D34throse Darklight (talkcontribs) 13:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the actors are not Japanese is not personal opinion. What is personal opinion is to term this fact "strange", or to consider it worthy of note within the encyclopedia entry. The TV series is hardly a naturalistic portrayal of actual samurai, is it? I thought it was more a group of live-action superheroes in brightly-colored, full-body spandex jumpsuits. So, it is hardly obvious that the ethnic makeup of the actors involved is noteworthy. But if it is notable, suitable references from one or more reliable sources should be provided, especially given that it has been challenged by other editors. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

False positives with AWB[edit]

Right Thanks for this--I'm looking through my edits now... —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 04:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...[edit]

...for the barnstar. You made my day! Arbor8 (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Curling notability[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you reverted my addition of a provision on WP:NCURLING. Would I have to initiate a proposal at WP:NSPORTS? Or would a proposal at the WikiProject (WP:CURLING) suffice? I made a proposal at WT:CURLING, and I think we reached consensus on the matter. Thanks for your help! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Please propose at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)--notability discussions at content-specific wikiprojects are apt to be biased towards over-inclusiveness within that subject, as you might imagine. You may well find me arguing against your proposal, but please don't take this as being specifically anti-curling. I believe that the NSPORT guidelines as actually applied have led to a profusion of non-notable figures being stuffed into WP. I do appreciate your sounding me out on the question. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know! Points taken. Just saw this now, so I will post a proposal. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

As Blood Runs Black[edit]

Added a link to billboard. Instinct meets WP:BAND criteria for "notable band". It peaked at number 1 on billboard heatseakers albums and number 111 on the billboard 200. This meets criteria 2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinh456 (talkcontribs) 00:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

1D members section[edit]

I have been concerned about the fannishness to in the One Direction#Members section could you maybe reformulate or retype, help it out be more accurate, everything is sourced on that matter, i am a teen and English is not my first language i pretty much made the entire section AdabowtheSecond (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Apologies, but I was just responding to a random RFC. This is not an article I would like to invest time in. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pray to Kill and Return Alive[edit]

An update. We're still working on the article,[2] but I invite you to look in at the current version and compare it to the originally nominated version to see through the article's history that the nomination was based upon an impractical search, and the nom's disagreement with the IP who contested his original proposed deletion resulted in it being sent to AFD just 13 minutes after his prod was declined. This of course does not show consideration of WP:BEFORE , WP:DEADLINE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP or WP:PRESERVE and while not knowing the nom's mindset, made the nomination appear as if either retaliatory (ouch) or to force improvement (ouch). While the article might never be as delightfuly comprehensive as articles about recent blockbusters, I think you can see that even now we have enough non-English coverage to meet WP:NF for a pre-internet Italian film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar[edit]

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
For finding a citation about Park City, Illinois that I didn't even think to look for Dkriegls (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No problem. Forgetting about the content, those IP's were bulldozing their way through the process, so I can understand if you were fed up. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar! SL93 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Commodity trading articles[edit]

Hi there, Hobbes. I appreciated your support on the commodity pool drafts I'd shared at WikiProject Cooperation last week. I'm not sure if you'd seen, but another editor raised some concerns about the drafts, which I've aimed to address (as explained here). I don't know if you have any time or interest in looking again, but I'd very much appreciate it if so. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Give an opinion?[edit]

Could you do me a favor and give your opinion here? Thanks. SilverserenC 01:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply waiting[edit]

Quicker just to inform you directly, PParmley has edited the draft and responded here. Can you please indicate there if the changes satisfy your concern? (If yes, I will be implementing the draft after your response there.) SilverserenC 09:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New section[edit]

There's two new paragraphs to review here. And since you were involved in the prior discussion and all. :3 SilverserenC 20:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and thanks for the heads-up. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And again[edit]

It's been a while , but there's another requested edit for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company article on the talk page here. Could you go and leave a comment? Thanks. SilverserenC 02:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fever[edit]

Hey! Was that the requested WP:3O you gave there? Thanx in any case! Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  • You're welcome! I did see it there, but I haven't read enough on rules & regs to feel comfortable giving it the official 3O stamp. But, I thought it was an interesting issue and in my main area of interest, so I opened my big mouth. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, the problem is that we get a sort of Catch 22 situation. Since you replied, a regular 3o editor isn't supposed to, because there are now more than 2 editors involved. Anyone can take a 3o request. You did well, and there is nothing official about it. It's just a voluntary and handy tool. Now that you did reply, I suggest you read up just a bit on the 3o page, add (to your input in our talk) that you took the request and follow-up by removing the request on the 3o page and the template at the top of our discussion. Sound OK? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, you're gonna make me read? :)
And Yes check.svg Done. Not too painful, actually, and now I know how to play by the rules--thanks! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Congrats! I bet you'll make a fine 3o-er. Neutrality, balance and civility are essential. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

hi[edit]

hi i just wanted to say thanks for your help in understanding how to fix mixtape! JohnJeanBartiste (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Trudeau absurdity[edit]

Thanks for sourcing that. My reaction was an emotional one, and you were--within the rules that we play by--correct. I'm no fan of GW Bush, but Trudeau's challenge was patently absurd. If I was to offer $10,000 to anyone who could prove that Trudeau had fulfilled his obligation to remain faithful to his wife of thirty years, I doubt I'd get any takers, either. But neither would it prove anything. The only thing proven here is that Trudeau is a clever man, who knows how to skew language to serve his ends.

Which is probably why I've enjoyed Doonesbury all these decades. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Grooveshark[edit]

A second opinion would be helpful. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BenTels#Nomination of The Pink Circle Story for deletion[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Hobbes Goodyear. You have new messages at BenTels's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help with new PG&E history draft[edit]

Hi Hobbes Goodyear, I posted a request on the PG&E talk page several weeks ago but have not received a response from any editors. I know that Silverseren has previously asked you to help review some of my earlier drafts so I thought I would ask you myself. If you have time to review my request and my draft in my user space I would really appreciate it. Thanks, PParmley (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC about iTunes as a source for release histories[edit]

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could please take some time to comment at Talk:Trouble_(Leona_Lewis_song)#How_is_iTunes_messed_up. p.s. this is related to a previous discussion at Talk:Two Eleven. Thanks — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 23:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Black Uhuru[edit]

The Black Uhuru "Stage Work" was not promotional - the event already passed. It is part of their work and I am adding the section back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeggDeb (talkcontribs) 02:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If not promotional (of the musical and its backer), then why is your only purpose as a WP editor to add oversized mentions of it to performers' WP pages? It was a single, non-notable event--should every single concert that Black Uhuru has ever given be detailed in WP? If you believe that a case can be made for its addition, please make it on the Black Uhuru talk page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Soltis[edit]

Thanks for improving Andrew Soltis. WP:CHESS should have improved the article long ago, but you put us to shame a bit. Your work made the article much better and it's much appreciated. Quale (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, my pleasure. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for your diligent work of protecting this and other articles. Warden (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Glengarry Glen Ross (film)[edit]

"Cyfarchion!"

I have made the revision, "Kroll observed of Alec Baldwin's performance, ..."

iechyd a lwc dda i chi ac yn eich blwyddyn annwyl nesaf = health and good fortune for you and your beloved next year
Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 07:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Deleting links[edit]

Hi, I see that you have been deleting lots of Amazon links. Amazon link to useful book info such as ISBN, publishing history, synopsis and so forth. Links also provide proof that the books actually exist, which is useful to editors and readers. I would encourage you not to delete these links. Thanks Span (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment in general and with respect to the specific links in question. I deleted six such links, all from a brand-new IP user who has done nothing but add such links. Three were for non-obscure pop albums. Two others were for Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Shakespeare's Othello. The last was for Stanislavski's An Actor Prepares, which I replaced with a Google books link.
I would discourage anyone from adding sales pages to External Links sections, as in most cases there are non-sale sites that can provide the information and it goes against the guideline WP:External links#Links normally to be avoided:
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
...
6. Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan WInters[edit]

Thanks for your help with overlinking recently. I was adding a lot of content at once and may/must have overlooked this issue. Take care! :) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Banc De Binary[edit]

I've restored the deleted version of the article to User:Hobbes Goodyear/Banc de Binary. I think the newly created article's content is substantially different from the one deleted a few months ago, so CSD#G4 does not apply. Deryck C. 23:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

18seconds Magazine[edit]

Hi Hobbes


Andy here from 18seconds Magazine (editor). Recently noticed you had contributed to the deletion of our page. You wrote, "2-year-old digital surfer magazine, published occasionally. No evidence for notability is offered; understandably, as substantial WP:RS coverage is scarce--mostly social media and some blog posts, that I found. If better sourcing can be found, happy to look again."

I noticed in the deletion notes it says the magazine is published occasionally. That's incorrect - it has been published every 2 months since inception in 2010.

Do these links count as notability? http://www.surfersvillage.com/surfing-news/49237 http://www.misfitmedia.com.au/publishers/18seconds-magazine/ http://www.runamukvisuals.com/the-archives/spreading-filth-18-seconds-magazine/ http://www.bandt.com.au/companies/traditional-media-and-broadcasting/sporting-fitness/general-sport/18seconds-magazine http://www.toddrosewall.com/index.php/item/88-cstetur-adipisicing-elit http://www.theloop.com.au/ANLI/project/69082

Please consider re-listing the following information:

18seconds Magazine (www.18seconds.com.au) is a bi-monthly digital surfing magazine published in Australia. It features articles about the ocean and travelling. The magazine was founded in 2010 by Andy Morris (former assistant editor of Australia's Surfing Life Magazine www.surfinglife.com.au). As of 2013, the editor is Andy Morris and the designer is Alicia Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.38.151 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussion[edit]

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A message from Jean-François Monteil. About strict conditional[edit]

If you are still interested by the problem, I suggest the following reading: KNOLmnc 1 Modal logic. The three ingredients of strict implication. Calcutta (84.100.243.222 (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Hobbes Goodyear. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 05:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Burnett (producer)[edit]

Ypur page says your expertese is in unknown music. I suggest you stick with that as your film industry knowledge is none existant. He his as written.Makro (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Music Charts[edit]

Hello,

As you were involved in the discussion about the Scottish Charts, I thought you might be interested in taking part in a discussion regarding Regional Charts overall: Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#Policy_Proposal_by_KWW

Best --Rushton2010 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Request comment?[edit]

Hi. Would you care to weigh in on this discussion regarding an editor disputing certain genres in the article's infobox? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Pablo Casals[edit]

FYI Since you commented User Desastru has added an option 4 which falls short of a total ban on the cellist's Catalan name. You may wish to comment on Option 4, cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but I had seen and rejected option 4 before I voted. And as I said in my response, Option 1 does not mean a total ban on "Pau". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

copyright claim appears spurious--please explain your rationale on talk page[edit]

Wercengetorix (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hello Hobbes Goodyear:

I am the original contributor and editor of the site of the link in question and the original editor of the placement of the links in the Wikipedia article in question, and of every edit remaining that lists or references goingthruvinyl.

In Canada, copyright exists automatically when a work is created. My work has been taken by the site against my will and requests to remove my work, or to be paid for it have been refused, my name has been removed, and my access to the site has been locked out.

Not only is the site in infringement of copyright, but the links were put in at the request of the owner, not to increase knowledge or for respect of the artist, but simply for advertising his site. Other links and cited references have been discovered and removed as being advertising. The ones that remain are the ones that have not been discovered.

Below are the sections of the copyright act to which I am referring:

From the Canadian Copyright Act:

Moral Rights Infringement Infringement generally

28.1 Any act or omission that is contrary to any of the moral rights of the author of a work or of the performer of a performer’s performance is, in the absence of the author’s or performer’s consent, an infringement of those rights.

Nature of right of integrity

   28.2 (1) The author’s or performer’s right to the integrity of a work or performer’s performance is infringed only if the work or the performance is, to the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation,
       (a) distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified; or
       (b) used in association with a product, service, cause or institution.
   R.S., 1985, c. 10 (4th Supp.), s. 6;
   2012, c. 20, s. 19.
  1. You have provided no evidence that you are the actual author.
  2. You have provided no evidence that the website in question has acted unlawfully or immorally.
  3. You have provided no evidence or claim that this website is acting in contradiction of any legal decision in the matter. If you have pursued this matter within your own legal jurisdiction and have obtained some sort of judgment or injunction against this website, please point to evidence of same. If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here.
  4. In my own opinion, some of the refs to this website are useful, some are pointless--I agree that the pointless ones should be removed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wercengetorix (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC) First you reverted my removal of links for not explaining the removal, then you reverted my re-removal of the links with my explanation of violation of the Canadian copyright act. You stated my claim appears spurious and asked for my rational. I provided this, and did so in a way that was concise to not overburden the reader whilst not to attach my name any further to a site I deem to be unethical. I provided most relevant points to which I am referring with enough information for the reader to easily verify the copyright act for themselves, should they wish.

Your point 1 states I provide no evidence that I am the original author. True, I do not. I do not wish to associate my name with the site at all nor have any of my work there. I do not have to be the original author to say the site is in violation of copyright. I assert there is work there that is "in the absence of the author’s or performer’s consent", that is "used in association with a product, service, cause or institution", and believed to be "at the prejudice of its author’s or performer’s honour or reputation". Point 2 states that I have provided no evidence that the site has acted unlawfully or immorally. Point 3 again states that I have provided no evidence that the site has acted unlawfully or immorally in the matter then says to have my legal matters decided elsewhere: "If this is a legal matter, please have it decided in your local jurisdiction, not here." Point 4 says that in your opinion some refs are useful, yet you agree that some of the refs to the site are pointless. I admitted that the refs and links to the site were done for advertising and not in the interest of the artist involved, or for the benefit of knowledge in general, and the ones that remain are the ones that successfully circumvented the filters and rules of advertising on Wikipedia.

I am considering which legal option to pursue with the site. No determination has been made. As for sufficient evidence for yourself, what evidence would be sufficient aside from the evidence that you, yourself have found that some of the references are pointless and perhaps used as that as evidence enough to back up my claims that the references and links were inserted for advertising, and carried that further as evidence to reason that the site itself may not be ethical? And even if it came to an either/or decision doesn't the negative claim seem to hold much greater weight, proof, and a detriment to people involved rather than to let them remain?

And if I am to have my legal matters decided "not here", why then didn't you state that earlier when I used the violation of the copyright act as my explanation? Can the removal of the links be adjudicated by a higher authority in Wikipedia? I feel that I am being met with resistance and a battle of wills and control issues rather than a reasoned condition for reversing my edit. If I sound frustrated, it is because with this issue of copyright, I have recently been at the losing end of someone at the attached to a computer with more control while I was trying to do the right thing.

Or perhaps the matter could be settled here; if you could explain which refs and links you feel should be removed and which should stay, perhaps we are in agreement; I'm agreeable to keeping the references and links to articles which refer to theft of material and unethical contracts. I find the irony amusing.

There are two issues here. Leaving copyright aside for the moment, if the external links are not useful to a reader of the article, then they should be removed. Please see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided for guidance, although it might be better that you post requests at individual article talk pages, rather than remove links yourself, as you hardly seem neutral in the matter. I have reverted some of your changes, but left others intact, assuming that you also edit under the name User:Utsid3sP1q3. And as a side note, please edit under a single user name or at least identify on your user pages that accounts are operated by the same person--see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You should assume that where I reverted, I thought that the links were of use. In at least some of the cases where I did not revert, I thought the removal was valid because the links were more spam than useful.
You are making unfounded claims that you previously behaved wrongly at WP (by adding these links in the first place) and, now that you have a business grievance (again, unfounded), that you have seen the light and would like to undo your past wrongs and, incidentally of course, damage the other party. I do not find that this makes you especially credible. You provide sections of copyright law, but no evidence that they apply here at all, other than your anonymous assertion. I am not an expert on what constitutes a good case in theses situations, but it seems to me that you provided no case at all. You might want to briefly summarize the situation here: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and ask for help on how to proceed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wercengetorix (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC) There are more than two issues here, and more important than the ones you listed. I can see only one of two reasons for your omission; either you fail to understand, or choose to ignore. Additionally, you are making your own determination into my motives and actions. I asked if there were a higher authority to adjudicate the matter. I tried to reduce the issues to simple logic, and I find your logic does not follow and you seem to fail to build upon evidence and reasoning before you, including your own. If not an honest mistake, then I feel you are simply recalcitrant to overturn your action and ego is determining your thought. The links you provided seemed to be more misleading than pertinent. I have provided the information asked of me. I never claimed to be neutral, but stated my position openly when asked and the reasons for my action; to which you, in some circumstances, have found yourself in agreement.

Removal of links to a site I claim to be unethical and in violation of copyright requires a determination from court or does not, and if not, either my claim backed up with the evidence I provided is sufficient to remove the links, or if not, then it comes down to your opinion, in which circumstance, you admit you're not an expert. Then let someone else in a better position adjudicate the situation. I stated my position, and backed it up with evidence, including your own agreement. Reasonably, where does the greater harm lie; promoting a site which may be unethical and in violation of copyright and shown to be advertising, or removing a link? I feel that you are abusing your position as an editor to impose your will, blindly. Let me hear from someone else that I am required to get a determination from court, if that's not required, then direct me to someone who can make a reasoned determination; I find your approach a little insulting. If I am misinterpreting you, I am sorry, but I don't wish to deal with you for the reasons stated above.

If you have been wronged in your business dealings, then I commiserate, but is it reasonable to expect me or any other Wikipedia editor to support your actions based solely on your anonymous say-so? You refer to "the evidence I provided", but I see none, other than your anonymous claims. If you just want to vent on my talk page, well, okay, that's fine. I have already agreed with you that, in some cases, these links are just spam, in which case they should be removed, regardless of copyright. But, if you want me or other editors to act on your claim that these links are to copyright violations and so to be avoided even if useful, then I think you have failed. If you want advice on how to make a better case, then I again urge you to seek advice at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Here's what I would post there: "Hi. I wish to remain anonymous, but I used to work with this website where I provided content. We had a falling out, but they continue to publish content where I hold copyright, without permission or compensation. I am considering but have not yet begun legal action to stop them. There are links to some of this material in Wikipedia. One or more other WP editors believe that some of these links are valuable, and so disagree that they should be removed, unless they are in violation of copyright. Unless and until I am successful in my legal proceedings, is there anything I can do to have links to this material removed per WP:COPYVIO?" --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wercengetorix (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Ok, I am frustrated (with the issue in general and with some points in specific). Please bear with me. I still feel as if I am being treated dismissively, and I am surprised at the opposition with which I am being met. The matter seems clear enough to me to require quick and decisive action but am meeting a bulwark. But perhaps we can end the matter here. For the matter most important in specific: you (you, not me, but you) are still affirming there is evidence that back up my claims that the site is unethical and spam/advertising then saying that I provide no proof (or just "anonymous say-so") I'm not referring to what I'm saying, but to what you have determined. Your confirmation is my evidence. I tried to make that clear, but we seem to be stuck there. Something more than nothing is not nothing. x > 0 ≠ 0. That is as clear as I can make it.

If you are reluctant to remove the links because you have yourself gone to them and enjoyed what you found there, I can appreciate that, but the site started out with good intentions and it has greatly deviated from it's beginnings to where it is now in violation of the law and in violation of Wikipedia's policies. I am now asking not only for the site's links to be removed, but also for the site to be blacklisted from Wikipedia, as from what I've found so far seems to be a sufficient case to do so. If you will confirm that and act on that-good, the matter will rest there. If you still feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter. Please bear in mind that even at the beginning of the site's inclusion into Wikipedia that the intention was to advertise the site, upon that, within Wikipedia's policies, the links should be removed. Upon that the site is now in copyright violation and other repeated violations within Wikipedia, it seems sufficient to have the site blacklisted. If you still feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter.

Going through the links you provided more thoroughly has led me to the following to enforce my position in hopes that we come to complete agreement.

from: Wikipedia:Copyright violations

"Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

From: Restrictions on linking

"For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:
1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted :works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that :violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.[2] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its :copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly :relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright."

Not to be rude, but to illustrate my argument, that seems to take precedence, despite what you find useful. "without exception"

Additionally, this would have been helpful when I asked if there were anyone else to arbitrate the matter: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

From: Links normally to be avoided.

4. Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming.
11. Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

From: Advertising and conflicts of interest

"Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam
It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a :site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and :let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially
revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit :organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax :status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link."

I have more evidence to back up my position, but hope this is sufficient to end the matter here. I think it is sufficient evidence not only for the site's links to be removed, but also to be blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you feel it does require further proof, I would like someone else to arbitrate the matter.

Is that enough to remove the links and blacklist the site, here, with you, as it stands now, or are we still in disagreement?

To https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arbor8 - I am sorry, but I do not know what ANI refers to.

Sorry for not indenting properly, etc.

Again, if you have been wronged in your business dealings, I commiserate. But if I say, "Some is spam, some is not", this does not mean "all is spam, blacklist them". And it is unhelpful to keep regurgitating yet more policies against copyright violation. These are not in question. What is in question is whether there is a copyright violation in this case. Given that there is only your anonymous claim, and that you continually decline to provide any other evidence whatsoever, why would you expect impartial third parties to take action against this site? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Second opinions[edit]

Hey there, it's been a while since I've been on here, but I remember you being a good resource. Can you remind me where I might go to post a content dispute to get others to weigh in on? I feel like going to ANI at this point would be an overreaction -- but it's hard to reach consensus on a talk page when there are only two people participating :)

Thanks! Arbor8 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back! I also took a fairly lengthy sabbatical but have been active recently. If the dispute is strictly between you and one other editor, WP:3O could be the place. If there are active, relevant Wikiprojects, you could post there to ask for others to weigh in. WP:Dispute resolution has the full gamut of options. If these don't work or even if just because this is that one, depressing dispute that is draining you of all your energy to contribute, feel free to point me at the specific case. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I think we came to a resolution that nobody is entirely happy with, which probably means it's the right one :) Arbor8 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? The criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)