User talk:Onebravemonkey

Welcome to my talk page! Please, leave me a new message.
I will generally answer here on my talk page, so you might want to add it to your watchlist.
I would appreciate it if you didn't use templates, but rather just left a brief note instead.
Cheers, onebravemonkey

---

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I hereby award you with a big blue barnstar for your particularly fine and ceaseless contributions at articles for deletion, and a particularly fine sense of humour. KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 14:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This diff made me chuckle and is what encouraged me to award you this.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 14:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well congratulations on your first barnstar, and don't let bastards grind you down eh?--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" External Links

If you're going to pester me over usage subjects like that, you could at the very least be specific about the supposedly "inappropriate" links that I've been posting. And another thing, what the hell is an "appropriate" link? I've never posted anything explicit (i.e. porn) or irrelevant to the topic of the articles at hand! So get a freaking grip and clue! :(

TMC1982 (talk) 10:44 p.m., 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and queries

Thanks for your kind note onebravemonkey. I'm becoming more familiarised with those guidelines and only recently amended my own page with more citations, since I discovered I had been cross referenced in MYDD about the primary wars, and then tried to provide more citations for the Motley Moose piece as requested. Difficult to know whether providing citations crosses the line somewhere - and also some of them are inaccessible as only in print. More importantly, I would appreciate your help on the Motley Moose page. I wondering if the deletion request has some political motivation as editor who requested speedy deletion wrote a glowing article on the "theory" of evolution and The Huckabee Report--Peterjukes (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned below to one of those voting against deletion of the Motley Moose article, trying to assign political motives to other editors is extremely unwise as it could be seen as failing to assume good faith, a core behavourial policy on WP.

I've had a go at providing better sources for the Motley Moose article, but have been unable to. To be honest I believe that it should be deleted as it doesn't meet the notability guidelines for web content. As for your own input into these articles, adding citations is acceptable but it would be a better idea to steer a wide berth to avoid any accusations of bias or using WP for promotion.

Cheers,

onebravemonkey 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the decision to delete Motley Moose was not yours, and I think it's wrong - but time will tell. At least this discussion is recorded.

In regards to the citations on my own page. It's pretty hard when, finding yourself on WP in an article that says 'this needs more links' not to be impelled to provide them. The same is true for 'citation needed' but, taking on board what you say about self-promotion and interest, I'm now loathe to provide those sources. Would it work if I gave you the links to follow through? --Peterjukes (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add sources to the article, but I would advise extreme caution. I would also repeat that reading the guidelines on autobiographies and conflicts of interest(if haven't already) would be a very wise move on your part. Probably the best thing to do would be to establish yourself as an editor by helping with articles that you have no link to as this will lessen any possible suggestion that you were using WP for self-promotion, when you edit your own article. onebravemonkey 09:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To save you time onebravemonkey, I'm reposting the comments I've made in reply to you on the AfD thread. As I said I took to heart the conflict of interest dangers, and followed the guidelines: "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when...." As you'll see I haven't edited the piece, only replied to misrepresentations of my Prospect piece, its origin, and my involvement with Motley Moose. Here's what I wrote:

Response thanks for your comments Onebravemonkey. I read the guidelines, and took very much to heart what you said about not editing articles that involved me, even in the spirit of correction. But here, in this AfD discussion, I'm not editing the article. Most my comments are about misrepresentations of the Prospect Article. To whit:

1. I have no financial interest in the site, and discovered it in the process of writing the article. The notability of the site comes from precisely its origin out of the primary wars, and what I described as the 'first big political battle of the blogosphere'. To correct a misrepresentation of my print article hardly strikes me as a conflict of interest.

2. I corrected the impression that the reference to Motley Moose was 'in passing'. It wasn't, it was mentioned in conclusion.

3. Now I stand accused of having written the Prospect piece out of self interest because I was planning to join the site. This is frankly ludicrous, and shows no understanding of the rigours of writing for Britain's top philosophical and political monthly. With its large editorial staff and reputation to maintain, there is no way that Prospect would publish a 4,000 word piece like this because an author wanted to puff a website he might like to join in the future. The article was commission and published because of its notability, a notability which has been confirmed since by the number of conferences I have been invited to talk on the matter, and the number of political organisations hoping to emulate the mainly American phenomenon of political blogging in the UK. Short of demanding some kind of apology from the author of those damaging remarks, my only alternative is to correct the false impressions where they take root. Surely wikipedia understands the rights of the accused and the possibility of offering a counterstatement.

Though I understand better the protective rules about editing wikipedia articles in which one has an interest, correcting false impressions of other sources seems to me to be a different issue. I commented in good faith on a separate journalistic piece I had written, and if this is somehow a 'conflict of interest' would like guidance how one should respond in cases like this. As you will see I have had no input into the piece itself, following your strict cautions.--Peterjukes (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs)

I notice that, following the debate over The Motley Moose, the article Peter Jukes is now up for deletion.

I have no way of being sure, but I think this entry has been up for several years. I did not create it, nor my other entries on the MYDD, Sea of Souls or Inspector Lynley page, and only added some citations and cross referenced when I discovered that I was on wikipedia, and referenced as a 'stub' with more content needed.

Back in February you kindly pointed out that even adding references could be a COI and said "This is simply meant as a friendly note "other than missing a few sources the article about yourself is mostly within the guidelines, but I just wanted to bring your attention to those guidelines to help your future editing".

I have tried to abide by the guidelines, only commenting on The Motley Moose AfD when I thought my Prospect piece was misrepresented. (It's now being described as a blog rather than a printed magazine piece but I feel powerless to respond).

I've written extensively about new media and internet since the 1990s. I really approve of the wikipedian project, and have found the Motley Moose discussion and the arbitration process fascinating. It speaks well of the wiki principle in many respects, whether or not Motley Moose is considered notable enough at this juncture for inclusion. We debated intensely over the complex area of blog notability

Without imputing bad faith on any part, the sudden AfD on my own entry after several years, and your own cleaning up of it, strikes me as strange.

Any comments on this?--Peterjukes (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does my cleaning up of that article strike you as strange? During the first AFD of Motley Moose I noticed your name linked and followed the link. Having seen that your own article was in need of citations, I added a few. Nothing strange about that. As far as the AFD being strange too; I'm not sure about that either... the nominator is fine to pick any article that they deem worthy of deletion, no matter the age. I, obviously, was not involved and don't plan to be.

Unfortunately, this diff seems to suggest that you created the page, which may fuel the fires of editors querying whether this breaches WP:COI... which, again, I warned you of. I would advise you to steer clear of that AFD, too, as it will help a lot more if you sat back and let the WP AFD editors review it. If, indeed, it does breach any guidelines, then you have nothing to worry about and your intervention would only put that at risk.

Regards, onebravemonkey 13:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding. Your clean up was fine and welcomed, as was your warning about providing sources on my own page. You will remember that I explored the dilemma then: an article about oneself requires more sources. I have them at hand, but don't won't to invoke a COI. I will certainly not get involved in any AfD about its deletion.

As for the original diff. I think it must have been several years back that I found I had been entered in several entries - Waking the Dead for one - and clicked on the link, only to find a message - this person has not an entry yet, can you create one. I put in those two lines and thought nothing of it. Looking back at the history the COI was discussed then and left to stand.

A few weeks ago, you had no problem with the entry, and even helped to clean it up fr which I am grateful. But now we've had an ongoing dispute about my involvement in Motley Moose, you've clearly stated you're not going to stop the article being deleted. This follows your reiterated comment "I warned you..." and does strike me as strange. It was fine then in terms of notability and Bio guidelines, but somehow not now.

I will stress again, I have no personal grudge about your dispute on Motley Moose, and can see that political blogs are a problematic area in terms of notability. But your change of heart over the validity of the article on me does seem to suggest there could be some bad feeling hanging over. I would not want that to remain. --Peterjukes (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter, likewise I don't want it to seem that I hold a grudge against yourself, nor that I've had a change of heart over your article, because neither is the case. My lack of action can simply be put down to edit-fatigue and the need to focus on things other than WP for a while. I dislike AFDs that turn into long essays and exploration of grey ares; I don't see the policies and guidelines like that, so get burnt out pretty easily... which is the reason I don't frequent AFD half as much as I used to.

I will keep an eye on your article and see how it goes. I think your best claim to notability lies with your writing rather than any blogging, but am wary that the focus from the Motley Moose AFD may shift over. I must reiterate that I believe the article to be mostly within the guidelines; my obvious tagging for citations should show the areas of weakness that need focus. If the AFD seems to be going completely tits up I might chime in, but I'll see how it goes first. Don't worry too much about it, though.

Cheers, onebravemonkey 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou onebravemonkey. I'm not that worried about the entry - no one who commissions me is going to do it on the basis of a wikipedia entry and my work stands in other spheres. I love the wikipedia project regardless, and have already begun to do minor improving edits to subjects which have nothing to do with contemporary politics or biography. Your good cheer and understanding is very appreciated - much more important than a few kilobytes on a screen. --Peterjukes (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Motley Moose

I'd like to echo Peter's sentiments. I want to thank you for helping us improve the wikipedia page, but it seems to me the original impetus of deletion came from an editor who had a political slant; since I "called him out" on the possible motive behind his suggestion, I haven't seen him, and he wouldn't provide any constructive suggestions. As far as I can read the Wikipedian guidelines, he certainly misused the "Speedy deletion" articles that originally brought the page under consideration. As I said, I've no problem "justifying" the site's existence, but the method that was used for it to be called into question certainly concerns me. I understand the implications of suggesting this as related in the Wikipedia guidelines, so I thought I would discuss it with you privately, here. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs. I simply wanted to highlight that although AFD can seem like a bit of a feeding frenzy, the majority of editors there have the best interests of WP (and the articles thereof) at heart, and aren't just deleting for the sake of it. The guidelines and policies are core to the sustainability of WP, so that's why those at AFD hold so strongly to them.

I would strongly recommend that you ignore any possible political slant from any other editors involved in this. To bring that element into the discussion may lead to questions regarding good faith and that will muddy the waters further. As far as whether the editors in question misused any process, I don't think he did. He made the choice to tag the article for speedy deletion as he felt that it was promotional in nature. You disagreed, so it was brought to AFD to discuss. This is absolutely in line with the deletion policy (which I again recommend you read).

Whilst you're at it (and considering you are a fairly new editor) please, please read the guide to deletion, if you haven't already. There are a few linked guidelines on there, which may be of interest to you. These are, as I mentioned previously, some of the core components of WP and should be adhered to.

As far as the article is concerned, I have tried to find detailed sources that refer to the article in the manner required by the notability guidlines for web content, but cannot find those that meet that criteria. In future discussions I would strongly recommend that you think about how best to meet these. Essentially they are as follows:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (This is probably the most important one of the three.)
2. The website has won a well-known, independent award from a respected source.
3. The content is distributed by a well-respected, independent third-party publisher.

These are by no means the only criteria to meet, but in my opinion they are the most relevant to the website. I will keep trying to find sources, but I have to concur with my fellow editors that it seems as though deletion is the best option for the moment. (This obviously doesn't mean that the article can't be recreated once better sources are found, but i must warn you that simple recreation is liable for speedy deletion under criteria G4: Recreation of deleted material).

So take it easy, familiarise yourself with the policies a little more and hopefully you'll be able to improve some of the other articles on WP too.

Cheers,

onebravemonkey 10:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• They deleted the page, but I thought I'd at least get a chance to save that information!!! Please don't tell me it's gone forever! Ks64q2 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see that you brought the article to DRV and that you now have a copy. I'm a little concerned that you don't appear to have addressed my repeated calls for meeting WP:WEB, but I'm glad that you are taking a larger part in WP. I'd echo my comments to Peter above; establish yourself as a long-term editor and demonstrate that you are acting with the best interests of WP at heart, rather than with the sole aim of creating articles on a narrow range of subjects. onebravemonkey 09:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Note: This comment was written pre-coffee on a Monday morning, so may appear to be harsher than was originally intended!

Crammage vandalism

Hi,

One of the crammage sockpuppets has put up a fake AFD on the Anki page again. I don't want to get into another edit war - what can be done about it? 58.3.182.104 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

.. actually, scratch that, they've actually submitted it for deletion this time. I'm confident the first two negative votes are sockpuppets, though. 58.3.182.104 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)