User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 22

♠ New messages to the bottom please. I will reply here without pinging unless asked otherwise. ♠ Please link to articles you're asking about by enclosing the title in [[brackets]]. ♠ For undeletion requests, provide 3-4 reliable sources that indicate notability. ♠ Less is more. Walls of text and piles of links will be ignored. ♠ Please don't template the regulars. I don't mind criticism but being templated is a bad way to start a conversation. ♠ This talk page is watched by a few friendly talk page stalkers who may respond to messages when I'm not around.

A pie for you!

Ooooh, fresh talk page. Here's a pie. All good things start with pie. Especially pecan pie. Mmmm, tasty. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I've always wanted to go to the south and eat real pecan pie! Maybe one day when COVID is over :( ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Like, look at that photo. You can see the crystallized sugar on the filling. I wanna eat ittttttttttt ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Greetings PMC! I hope you're doing well :)

I wanted to ask if you could semi-protect article Georgians as it's constantly disrupted by unregistered actors and IP addresses. Much appreciated! An emperor /// Ave 02:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for the late response. I've done it for a month to start, let me know if it needs more after that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you PMC! Regards! An emperor /// Ave 01:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Allan Bennett Page

Good Day, Asartea suggested I talk to you, I was just hoping if you could temporarily unblock the recent history to the Charles Henry Allan Bennett page. I was unaware that the quoting of paragraphs was against fair use, if you look though a lot of work went into it, and there are many salvageable parts. Also the one I was quoting was from the 1950s so I didn't think it a problem. The page; http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/honourfathers.pdf I have not see before, that that may reference the 1950s Book edited by Christmas Humphreys also, so not sure what that was about. Anyway I am happy to rework the content and have since found the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria so shall review it before posting again.

I did spend some hours carefully quoting things, so would really appreciate just to get a copy of it again (as would be a hassle to go back again to those sources), then can see how to make it comply with the wikipedia standards. If you have any thoughts or suggestions also I am happy to hear.

Thanks for your time, I hope you can help, have a great day. :-) 203.59.32.61 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been having a bit of a look at the various pages Wikipedia:Copyright problems it says "Listings typically remain for at least five days before review and closure". Also looking at Wikipedia:Non-free content it is very dense, it says under the text section "Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes.". I guess some of the last edits that were made were to much text, as mentioned though I am happy to rework it, and open to suggestions if I could be given access to the most recent edit temporary to copy the notes that were made. Thanks :-) 203.59.32.61 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have contacted The Buddhist Society to request copyright permission for the selected paragraphs from A Buddhist Students` Manual by Christmas Humphreys (Editor) via there proper request. I am happy to remove or do the same for any other disputed items. 203.59.32.61 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem isn't formatting or attribution. It's that vast swaths of the article were constructed from blockquotes, which is way past what's acceptable for "quoting". The majority of any Wikipedia article should be written by Wikipedia editors working from sources, not by stitching blockquotes together. Any time we quote from a source, it should be as minimal as possible to comply with copyright, and should be immediately germane to the rest of the editor-written content. Barbara Gordon#Critical and editorial commentary is a good example of large quotes used selectively. There are two blockquotes that illustrate the perspectives described by the sections they are attached to. They do not form the body of those sections.

You should probably also understand that just because something feels "old" doesn't mean it's no longer copyrighted. Copyright is quite lengthy in the United States; the onus is on you to prove that something has entered the public domain before treating it as such. Commons has a detailed guide here: Copyright rules by territory/United States; the table on the top right sums up most of it.

I'm happy to email you a copy of the content (restoring it would be a copyright issue, so I will not do that), but I need you to tell me you understand the distinction between using a quote to illustrate a point (fine), and using quotes to build the substance of the article (not fine), before I do so. Otherwise I suspect we'll be back at square one very quickly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Day, Thanks for the example, I shall review, yes I understand, I shall write the content in line with the guidelines, also seek the permission of the copyright owners if more use is sought. Basically I was planing to rework, also review the links I had put in and make sure they were suitable. I shall try to seek suggestions/permission before posting anything beyond the example stated. I was only working on this page as it is a poor representation of the man. And as I have been mainly doing self study these last few years, fair use is different to what it is in the public domain, so it was just an honest mistake. Please note would be good to get a copy of the whole article, as I had placed some links in the lower section also. I have created a one time link so you can access my email: https://onetimesecret.com/secret/o4kwh0859yws1mbnob3oa0r225o70k3 the passphrase is PremeditatedChaos. With Kindness and Thanks; also if you have any other suggestions, I am open ears; as clearly I messed this one up! Thanks for being so helpful. Peace.

I also found the Wikipedia:Quotations page and the Template:Blockquote which seem like more relevant information along with the sample you have given, so I can keep this inline with the wikipedia standards. "Overuse happens when: a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page but its relevance is not explained anywhere; quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased; the quotations dominate the article or section." Sure. 203.59.32.61 (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the delay, I was editing at a computer where I didn't have access to my personal email. I believe you've got a reasonable handle on the quoting thing, so I've sent it through now. Feel free to drop me a line here if you have any concerns or questions. Happy editing! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Received, Thank you. :-) I will take my time this time and do things properly. You have been very helpful. Peace. 203.59.32.61 (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

——Serial 18:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niranjan E K

Your closure here was early. And But it was misguided by the false claims that there was not significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. I think you should reconsider the closure. If not, please userfy the page to me, and I will reconstruct it. I've got over a dozen almost two dozen sources to add. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(watching) It was not early, no; 168 hours from 11:00 on 29 March 2021 is 11AM this morning...hours before it was closed. Suggest that aspersion is retracted and the battlefield left to its devices. Cheers! ——Serial 18:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, Serial Number 54129, thanks for the chocolate :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Premeditated Chaos. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)WP:DRV is probably the more appropriate place rather than aspersion casting on a single admins talk page...EGGIDICAE🥚 18:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong about the timing, and I apologize. No aspersion was intended.

I was about to do a substntial rewrite of the article.

That being said, you were duped, and it wasn't by me.

Reopening this correct the matter and makes it posssible to improve the article.

If I am wrong, then this can be deleted next week. Two votes based upon misinformation ought not to stand in the way of doing the right thing.

Please fix this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are you so sure that the two votes were mislead? They're both experienced editors and your assumption that they didn't bother to do a WP:BEFORE themselves is an aspersion itself, as is your insinuation that the nom misled anyone. EGGIDICAE🥚 18:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am asking you to correct a mistake that was induced by misstatements. I am aware of deletion review. You have the power to correct the mistake, and I think I owe you the courtesy first. here]

As to the two experienced editors, I've done the research AND provided the sources to PC. If they did WP:BEFORE then it was poorly done, or they lied about the results. Take your pick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it'd behoove you to stop casting aspersions, but you didn't even bother to comment in the actual discussion and presented no sources in the discussion, so i'm not sure what you're on about but DRV is the place to go. Bombarding people with emails isn't the way to do this, making a cogent argument in the AFD was the correct proccess, which you well know. EGGIDICAE🥚 18:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I posted at the AFD that it had been posted on WP:ARS. I did not comment because I spent the morningGop on researching and wanted to do rewrite before commening. If I had said that they did not do WP:BEFORE, one of them would have said I was casting "aspersions", as he recently did here at another AFD. so I just wanted to fix the article and say, "look". when I went back it was deleted. This can easily be corrected. But we can do it the hard way. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you require assistance finding your way to DRV ? Head right past AfD then take the first turn on the left, that should bring you out at DRV. Nick (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The easy way - the correct way, is WP:DRV. But I guess we're just doing this again, aren't we? EGGIDICAE🥚 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The easy way is to just undo the mistake. No harm, no foul.
Good faith mistakes happen. That is why they put Delete keys on computers. If you feel the need to go to ANI, all of this will be opened up. I am prepared to defend my actions. I certainly hope the moving partiea share your view. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is now disruptive - take this to DRV or drop the subject completely. Nick (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why would PMC undo a valid deletion which no one has contested but you - who didn't even bother to engage in a discussion and instead are still casting aspersions. Go to DRV, file a request and see where it goes. EGGIDICAE🥚 19:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

With the benefit of full information, I would assume it can and should be done. But I gather your answer is "No," and certainly that is your right. No harm in asking. We will go up the chain as you suggest. Please provide me with a copy of the deleted article. WP:Userfy. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A great many questions - (a) who is the "we" you talk about, are you saying your account is shared ? (b) I suspect PMC is offline, shocking that they're not here to handle you 24 hours a day, but such is life (c) have you forgotten how to sign posts and (d) is that DRV open yet ? Nick (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It is the editorial 'We.' And inevitably it will involve all those who got this article deleted – "we" are all parties to this controversy. Otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about. My account is not shared. I forgot to sign, and have now corrected it. But if you want to go down that road, feel free.

I am waiting for the userfied copy before I go to DRV. I want to have it all straight with my ducks lined up.

My preference was to simply give everyone a do-over, but I have no drag here, and y'all will do what you want.

I thought that User:Premeditated Chaos had said "no", but if I am mistaken, then we should all wait for the type to cool off and see if that is her final answer. I would like the Userfied copy of the article, ASARP. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Holy fuck, Premeditated Chaos hasn't even had the time to respond once because there's been over twenty edits to this discussion since it started, so if everyone could chill out for ten minutes maybe I could do so without having to rewrite my comments to account for the latest responses. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Great! So I took the time to look at the sources before responding, and they're pretty classically routine/run of the mill hagiographic coverage of a heroic death ("family mourns death" "guy gets nominated for medal" "another guy in his unit mourns his death" "family is happy he will be getting a medal" etc). No contest that the guy deserves to be lauded for his actions, but he clearly wasn't notable before his death, and I frankly don't see that human-interest coverage gets him over the notability hump when you take WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS into account. (Also, I'm not trying to be a cow, but including this article as a "result" is fairly shoddy research; it's a tabloid article about movie piracy affecting a different guy entirely.) In my personal opinion, I don't see the coverage as provided in the email to be a reason to overturn the AfD. You were editing the article prior to the AfD closure, so you had ample time to make some kind of comment at the AfD but chose for some reason not to do so. So I'm not going to overturn it on grounds of either coverage or your failure to comment.

I have zero objection to you taking this to DRV if you want, although fair warning, I will probably comment (I usually don't bother). You don't actually need a userfied copy of the article in order to open a DRV, so I don't intend to do that either at this time. Please don't argue with me about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The movie is about the subject of the article.

Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The movie is about the subject of the article. That article is from 2009, so unless it was made using time travel, I think the hell not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken, User:Premeditated Chaos. "Short film on final moments of Colonel E K Niranjan". Deccan Chronicle. January 15, 2016. Retrieved April 4, 2021. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that a ninety-second little memorial feature was released about him after he died, but amazingly, I am capable of reading, and the piracy article is very clearly about a full-length feature film released in 2009 starring renowned Indian actor Prabhas. Look! We have an article about it and everything right here: Ek Niranjan :) So unless that ninety-second short film was sent back in time to seven years prior to his death and magically gained 153.5 minutes of runtime during its trip through the space-time contiuum, no the fuck I am not. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody was questioning your ability to read.

I sent you rough and copious notes that I was going to use to edit the article. None of it was put into Wikipedia; and you won't userfy it so I can't edit from the old version.

He was the subject of a film. We agree on that.

I am not trespassing on your lawn, or impugning you in any way. Relax, please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You're so disingenuous I can't take a word out of your mouth seriously. You told me in no uncertain terms "No, you are mistaken", implying that I was too dense to understand a fairly short and simple article. In point of fact I was not mistaken; you were. And now instead of admitting you were mistaken, you come back with this mealy-mouthed 'so we agree that there was a film'. With all due respect, fuck off. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)