Jump to content

User talk:JoshuaZ: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 255: Line 255:
:Seeing as how this is a matter that deals with the legality and ethical responsibility of Wikipedia in reporting allegations of crime appropriately, Jimbo would be the ultimate person to contact in finding out what the BLP, RS, and N mean on the matter. Equally, Godwin would be a secondary choice, but Jimbo would be more reasonable to turn to in terms of ethics, which has a greater motivation to not put up pages devoted to mere allegations of an individual who has not even had a trial yet. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:Seeing as how this is a matter that deals with the legality and ethical responsibility of Wikipedia in reporting allegations of crime appropriately, Jimbo would be the ultimate person to contact in finding out what the BLP, RS, and N mean on the matter. Equally, Godwin would be a secondary choice, but Jimbo would be more reasonable to turn to in terms of ethics, which has a greater motivation to not put up pages devoted to mere allegations of an individual who has not even had a trial yet. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::"He doesn't get a magic decision about what is ethical and what is not" I am referring to him in his role as part of the WMF. They are the ones that are responsible for BLP matters. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::"He doesn't get a magic decision about what is ethical and what is not" I am referring to him in his role as part of the WMF. They are the ones that are responsible for BLP matters. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure how you can say that, especially with the AfD stating it at the very beginning. Furthermore, there are many admittances and discussions on the matter - "BLP does in some ways apply" from Mattbuck, who argues that it applies but isn't yet violated (he is a keep). Then there are discussions of and blatant misinterpretations of BLP by Moonriddengirl. Then there is this blatant one: "Delete per nom and others. This isn't notable, we're not news. Wikinews covers it. Let it stand there. And this is a BLP issue, as the editor is named. Lara 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)". I'm only half way down the page, but it is evident that your claim is again unfounded. Please stop insulting my intelligence by trying to pass off things that are obviously not true based on even cursory glances at the situation. BLP applies to -all- pages dealing with living individuals. Having someone accused of stealing stuff and then posting stuff is a BLP issue. There is no ands, ifs, or buts about it. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:05, 3 August 2009

Kip Kinkel

Hello Joshua Z, this is Marksdaman. The reason I redirected Kip Kinkel to Thurston High School shooting was because the article on the shooting gives information on the shooting and the background of Kip Kinkel, I just didn't think you'd need two pages about the shooting. Thats why I think we should leave the Kip Kinkel article redirect to the Thurston High School shooting. Thank you, and please respond Marksdaman My talk 19:36, 17 March 2009

RE: Protection

Hello, JoshuaZ. You have new messages at Icestorm815's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A.E. Wilder-Smith

listen i dont need the quotes okay but the rest will stay or be put back on continually —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlover32795 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoshuaZ. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Article userfied per request

See User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. Given the sensitive nature of this, you and any interested editors have 1 week to alleviate the community concenrns over WP:BLP problems. I will run an MFD in about a week to judge the community's pulse over whether or not the problems have been fixed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check my message at User talk:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. I suggest you get some outside opinions before moving this to article space to ensure that it is in compliance with WP:BLP. Not that I have doubts about you, but this is an important issue, and the topic is prone to drama. Better safe than sorry. Jehochman Talk 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JZ, what's your connection to Boothroyd? It looks like the "anon" that originally created the article started it in your userspace. And now it's back in your userspace after admins rushed to delete the article when the controversy hit. What's going on? It seems like a sordid web of some sort. I don't see why we can't go back to having an article with a couple sentences in it about the latest incident. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't in my userspace originally. I'm not sure why it looks that way. Moves can sometimes do odd things to title behavior. And since some difs have been selectively deleted that can help make things look even stranger. If you do think there should be an article, the most helpful thing you can do is to help expand the draft in my userspace and help track down reliably sourced content that is not about the current controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. So this is the first time you've had it in your userspace? As far as working on the article, I think it should be restored and two sentences added about the latest issues. If someone wants to expand it or improve the sourcing, good on them. I'm not that interested except in so far as I think the attempt at censorship and a cover up is obscene, especially given the circumstances that caused this latest incident. That those attempting the whitewash are many of our high power editors including Arbcoms and Admins is particularly troubling. I will be interested in their explanations if and when their actions compound the bad news and become a focus of media attention. It's enough already with the subterfuge. We don't need to add to the indignity of this black eye caused by the abuse of our policies by a trusted member of our community. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a coverup here although I can understand why it looks like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's just a coincidence that when the subject of one the many Wikipedia articles on marginally notable editors receives very substantial news coverage because of a controversy they suddenly become non-notable and must be speedy deleted right away? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It does mean that there are more eyes on it so when the person requests deletion they are more likely to be listened to. This is not the only example of this. There was an example a while back, I can't remember which article, where the article was written before some event occurred and the person was of questionable notability then. They then hit the news for doing something stupid and the article became mainly about that and then was AfDed under BLP1E grounds. That's partially what may be happening here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe a memo needs to go out that if we're hosting an article on any editor of marginal notability, when they receive substantial coverage for some impropriety or controversy, that will not be a time to process courtesy deletions. And the whole claim that he tried to delete it in 2005 is a bit bogus anyway. He nommed his own article (created by an anon in London...) saying he wasn't sure he was notable enough, and I didn't see any kind of objection when his buddies stepped up to tell him how modest and notable he is after all. Only now when the shit hits the fan does he want it deleted? The whole thing stinks and I'm sorry to see even a few editors I think are generally okay side with that kind of censorship that compounds the problems of COI and abuse that created the mess in the first place. If Jehochman or anyone else is adamant about deleting this kind of article there's a whole list of Wikipedia editors with articles so they should start there instead of the ones that are actually in the news. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boothroyd

Thanks for the invitation, but I do not intend to touch the Boothroyd article itself (in any location) with a ten foot pole until someone does something about the threats Jehochman has made toward me. TAway (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some shameless thankspam!

User:Colds7ream/RfA

New article

Hello. You may wish to take a look at some of the material, and sources referenced, at the new article Politico's Guide to the History of British Political Parties. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, Cirt is a damn good article creator. Perhaps you'd invite them to work on the BLP you have in userspace. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Cirt is of course welcome to help out. I doubt it will be up to keeping standards if I'm the only one who works on it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to add a small subsection with some brief bits including secondary source reception of his written/published works. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies but I think I'll hold off working on it for the time being, but let me know if I can be of any help if you need anything else from the sources listed in that new article. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

email...

...back atcha. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you did not see it immediately, Sam Blacketer/Boothroyd possibly urgent

[1] You better weigh in at that link. rootology (C)(T) 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JZ, it seems to me that your hosting the article in your userspace isn't the best of ideas. I wonder if you'd be willing to let me move it to mine. No one likes me anyway, so won't be any trouble. :) But seriously, I think it would be prudent for all concerned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Before I move it I also want to make it clear that I intend to adjust it per my understanding of our BLP and undue weight standards before putting it up at DRV. Obviously I don't own my userspace, so others will have a say, but my intention is to adjust its focus to the biographical aspects of the subject's life and to include the present controversy in a more compartmentalized way. If you're still okay with my moving it let me know. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

"The institute unifies clinicians and scientists in departments" tingled my copyvio sense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd

User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. rootology (C)(T) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JZ. I think it's time to let go. There are forces at work here that are beyond our control... :) But seriously, I obviously agree that the abuses of our processes and distortions of appropriate procedures are and were wrong. At this point the article should be allowed to get a work up in userspace and then a fair and orderly hearing according to our normal practices and procedures. But it's not going to happen. I think we have to let events unfold, and hope for the best. It's been a distorted and abusive process, but shit happens and there's other work to be done. No one needs to go down with the ship. Just my two cents. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moore Article

Thanks Josh. I'm new at this, being only 15 years old. I completly see your point. "Hypocritical" is neither appropriate nor neutral. However, I'm confused about your deletion of the part of the depression and cursing, as both are actually cite-able from reliable sources, especially the depression part which was admitted by Moore on CBS, Associated Press, etc., which are reputable news sources.

I was curious as to why the depression part was deleted if the Miley Cyrus article allows mention of the racist activites that she did

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Rachel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachgreen8326 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Globe

Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester16 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP/FC event @ end of June?

Hi Joshua, would you be interested in joining a Boston-area event at the end of June about free culture and Wikipedia? We didn't have enough interest for this past weekend, but are still hoping to have a small event here, leading up to the Wikiconference in New York next month. +sj+ 05:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated emails to me off-wiki, response in detail on my talk page

I decline to deal with you over e-mail, and in particular over anything else, as I really just don't have the time, and I despise secrecy of this sort. You can discuss any concerns with me here:

Where I have laid out my views, for you to respond to, as that is what you wanted to do anyway. rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved RFC

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Wadler

No problem. As a matter of fact I would like to get some input on if the article is ready for prime time mainspace yet, or if not, what is missing. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Voyage that Shook the World

Updated DYK query On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Voyage that Shook the World, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

That's odd, my email used to be enabled, I've gotten emails from Wikipedia in the past. I've fixed it, go ahead and send me an email. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garry MacDonald

I take it you know he's alive, and if so, do you also have a birth date? Regards Eldumpo (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I see the BLP/harmful rationale for including him in Living People but shouldn't he also go in Category:Year of birth unknown? Eldumpo (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bold proposal

Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

renominating?

I attempted to renominate Tyler Faith over at Articles for Deletion, but all that happened is the previous discussion from August 2008 appeared (which someone promptly deleted). I'm completely new to trying to get articles deleted (I've previously only been interested in writing & editing articles), so if you have any idea what I did wrong, or just otherwise how best to renominate an article for deletion, please let me know. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

"Your mention of the Ben Roethlisberger shows once again that you seem to be unable to understand the distinction between civil and criminal issues and also to not know about basic Wikipedia issues like WP:OTHERSTUFF. So I will try to be as blunt as possible: a mention of a claim of a possible civil problem is not the same as a criminal accusation. That's aside from the fact that discussion of notable criminal accusations are acceptable even if they never went to court. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC) "

[2]

"On July 17, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in Washoe County, Nevada District Court accusing Roethlisberger of sexually assaulting Andrea McNulty, 31, in June 2008 in his hotel room while he was in Lake Tahoe for a celebrity golf tournament"

Not a "criminal charge". A lawsuit. Please, if you are going to try and discuss this, get your facts right. Your statements are utterly insulting as it shows verifies that you are simply making stuff up instead of actually reading, investigating, and the rest. You still haven't asked Jimbo if he believes what you claim about BLP and how it is acceptable to reproduce allegations like that on non-notable subjects. Should I ask him on your behalf? I have seen many statements by him that suggest that he definitely does not agree with you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how this is a matter that deals with the legality and ethical responsibility of Wikipedia in reporting allegations of crime appropriately, Jimbo would be the ultimate person to contact in finding out what the BLP, RS, and N mean on the matter. Equally, Godwin would be a secondary choice, but Jimbo would be more reasonable to turn to in terms of ethics, which has a greater motivation to not put up pages devoted to mere allegations of an individual who has not even had a trial yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He doesn't get a magic decision about what is ethical and what is not" I am referring to him in his role as part of the WMF. They are the ones that are responsible for BLP matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can say that, especially with the AfD stating it at the very beginning. Furthermore, there are many admittances and discussions on the matter - "BLP does in some ways apply" from Mattbuck, who argues that it applies but isn't yet violated (he is a keep). Then there are discussions of and blatant misinterpretations of BLP by Moonriddengirl. Then there is this blatant one: "Delete per nom and others. This isn't notable, we're not news. Wikinews covers it. Let it stand there. And this is a BLP issue, as the editor is named. Lara 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)". I'm only half way down the page, but it is evident that your claim is again unfounded. Please stop insulting my intelligence by trying to pass off things that are obviously not true based on even cursory glances at the situation. BLP applies to -all- pages dealing with living individuals. Having someone accused of stealing stuff and then posting stuff is a BLP issue. There is no ands, ifs, or buts about it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoshuaZ&oldid=305875749"