User talk:Seraphimblade

• If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond, it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.

• If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing.
• If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
• While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
• I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others.

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Please do be nice.

November copy edit drive

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Non-free images in list articles

Regarding this edit to List of Hannah Montana main characters, can you please direct me to a policy or consensus that specifically states "Additional nonfree content beyond cast photo disallowed in list article", because it does not say that anywhere that I can find in WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Please see the nonfree content criteria. The image in question fails both #1 (it is replaceable, and indeed replaced, in this case by the text which quite well describes the differences in appearance), and #8 (since text does an adequate job of explaining these differences, the image is decorative rather than crucial). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCC does not state that at all. It provides for judicious use, not one and one only. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While your principle is correct, any given must pass all of the criteria. Since this image fails two of them, it would be excluded. If you take a look at similar "list of characters" articles, you will find that alter ego or minor characters, even those not featured in the montage or cast shot, do not then have individual images. It has generally been held that NFCC does allow one cast or montage shot for a list article, so that one is fine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have to ask, where in WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS does it say "Nonfree images in subarticles disallowed"? Given your comment above, "It has generally been held that NFCC does allow one cast or montage shot for a list article", this seems to be a contradictory edit summary. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Such is allowed in "List of X characters" articles only, not in every article which happens to be about it. I'm quite sure I specified character list articles as an acceptable place for a montage shot, but it can't just be splattered all over anything somewhat related. You cannot have the montage shot in every season, episode, etc., article just because it happens to be about the show, just as you cannot have an album cover everywhere the album is discussed (such as in a discography list, etc.), but only in the main article. The logo is even questionable in subarticles, but as long as it's the only one, probably alright. Since subarticles already reference the main article, there's no reason for it to be in them as well. There are a lot of permutations to minimizing use. In this case, it also fails #8 (there's no particular contextual significance, it's just placed there as decoration). Since it fails NFCC #1 (replaceable by referencing the article that uses it), #3a (not minimal use), and #8 (no real context to the article), it wouldn't be allowed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this explanation is it does not demonstrate that your stance is supported by policy, or even by consensus. Neither WP:NFCC, WP:NFC or WP:NFLISTS says anything to support you. However, WP:NFLISTS says "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image." This is a clear endorsement of the use of the season 2 cast image in Hannah Montana (season 2) and List of Hannah Montana main characters. To be honest, your edits in this matter are more than a little puzzling. You seem to have no problem with inclusion of all four season cast photos in the main article and inclusion of cast photos in the season 1, 3 and 4 articles and List of Hannah Montana main characters, you just seem to be picking on season 2 for whatever reason. In creating a quality encyclopaedia, or any such document, consistency is important and removing the cast photo from only one article removes consistency. For the record, I've removed the cast photos from the main article, as their use there was more decorative than encyclopaedic.[1] Originally I moved them all into {{multiple image}} to make them all a consistent size and tidy up the cast list generally,[2] but the cast list in the main article only lists the cast. It seemed more appropriate remove the image from Hannah Montana#Cast and leave them only in the season articles, where they already existed and where the cast is actually discussed. File:Hannah Montana cast 2.JPG is used in the character list article because it is the best representative image of the cast over the four seasons, but its use there does not preclude use in the season 2 article. Since there's no part of the policies that says the image can't be used, at least none that you've demonstrated, and since WP:NFLISTS states that repeating an already existing image is preferable over uploading a new image, there's really no reason why the image should be deleted. WP:NFCC#8 is not reason enough. That criteria can be used to exclude virtually every non-free image on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review - Legal Aid Ontario

Hey bud, another editor asked for my help in posting/reviewing the Legal Aid Ontario. Any chance you could pop by and provide some feedback on the talk page? I nominated it for GA review, but would really like your feedback. I know the author would appreciate your feedback. Alan.ca (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Did the review. Please let me know if it makes sense, if anything's unclear I'll try to clarify. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. I'm heading off to Dubai on Friday and I wanted a good neutral assessment of his work, but I lack the time at the moment. I'm not sure how long that review took you to write, but it is quite comprehensive and fair. Alan.ca (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Judah

Thank you for considering the 3O. However, I have tried everything that comes to mind, including RFC, MEDCAB, WP:ANEW, et al. It has been a two-editor discussion for two or three weeks now, and in the entire month-plus, PiCo has not allowed a single sentence of my original edits to stand, while every sentence of PiCo's original edits failed source verification immediately, and while PiCo feels permitted to make sweeping changes elsewhere in the article without discussion, all of which I documented as stated in the request section of talk. This is unlike any other DR experience I've had on WP. Can you tell me what might grease the skids here? It is a simple matter to look at the sources for the 12 remaining sentences/clauses and determine if they support the current text or not: I DID IT a month ago. But with this ongoing resistance nobody has joined me in the fray. What particulars would you suggest? JJB 19:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the edits are not supported by the sources, you might try the no original research noticeboard, specifying what you think is OR or unsupported by the source used and why. There is also a reliable sources noticeboard if you believe the sources used are not reliable ones. I don't think, at this point, that a third opinion is going to solve the issue—that's meant as a very lightweight process for when only two editors have been involved. Here, the involvement of additional editors clearly did not settle the matter before. I'd try bringing the sources to the appropriate noticeboard above. Also, it is not a "simple matter" to go and read twelve sources. You need to specify exactly what part of the article is not supported by its source(s) when you do bring it there (should be clearly stated for each disputed section, and be as brief as you can about it). If the problem continues, there is also formal mediation or as a last resort arbitration, but arbitration especially is not generally a good place to wind up, as the behavior of everyone involved will be examined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, off to NORN, in due time, thanks. JJB 19:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion removals

I noticed that you removed a pending request from the list there and declined it in this edit. We very recently adopted a new guideline at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Declining_requests_for_third_opinions which says:

Even if a request does not fully comply with the guidelines set out here, requests for third opinions should not ordinarily be removed from the list of active disagreements unless a third opinion will be given or unless the request has been listed for more than seven days. If you believe that there is a compelling reason to remove an item from the list for some other reason, it is usually a good idea to discuss the removal on the Third Opinion talk page before taking any action.

It's so new (and at the bottom of the page to boot) I'm not surprised that you missed it, but just wanted to let you know. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to leave even noncompliant ones? I'm not sure I see the point of leaving ones that don't fit the criteria. (Obviously, we wouldn't want people arbitrarily removing them without providing opinions!) Not sure of the purpose for this, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed a listing from the 3O list because it was a conduct dispute, not a content dispute, which set off the discussion which resulted in Athaenara removing the content restriction and me adding the non removal guideline which I quoted, above. See this discussion. Since the time that we adopted the staleness guideline (in the next–to–last paragraph of the How to list a dispute section), there seems to be more support for the idea of just leaving disputes on the list to see if anyone will take them regardless of nonconformity and only removing them if no one wants to do so and they become stale. Watching the list over the past few weeks, I've discovered that as a purely practical matter very, very few listed disputes stay on the list long enough to become stale, someone almost always gives an opinion. The thought is that the real value of the 3O project is as a quick and informal opinion by an editor who is a neutral to the disputants and the dispute and that the opinion is not a tiebreaker, i.e. that it doesn't !count towards consensus. The two–editors–only, civility, content–dispute–only, and other restraints make it more likely that 3O will settle the dispute, but if you think about it for a minute there's little harm done if if does not. Moreover, any Wikipedian is free to issue a neutral opinion in a dispute without reference to the 3O project. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dinnick

I note that my first page that I have created has been put up for deletion. Almost all authors who have writtten for Doctor Who (some of which have not written anything for years and whose books are lonmg out of print) have active pages (e.g. Simon Butcher-Jones) . I was trying to update this database of names.

My next move was to include John Dorney who has also written for many franchises and numerous productions as well as for the Royal Court theatre in London; and then David Richardson who is the line producer at Big Finish who has weorked on a number of Doctor Who ranges as well as other spin offs and who used to be a genre journalist.

I have tried to include footnotes about my first entry that comply with the notoriety guidelines - the interviews in two magazines, etc. There is an online interview I can link to and he also keeps a blog... If you tell me how I can improve, I will get right on it!

Cheers

Time's Champignon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeschampignon (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

From the current look of it, Butcher-Jones will need to be deleted as well, though I'll take a look for additional sources before nominating it. Currently, I've proposed Dinnick under the proposed deletion process. Anyone may disagree to that process and stop it by removing the proposed deletion tag, and you may do so if you choose. However, since I can't find any additional sources about Dinnick, it would probably have to go to articles for deletion, and such a discussion would likely end in a consensus to delete with the sources as they are now, unless you know of some more substantial ones I've not been able to find.

Keep in mind, for Dinnick, Butcher-Jones, etc., to be notable (a specific term we use, it does not mean the same thing as "notorious" or "famous"), there must be substantial independent ("Doctor Who magazine" is probably not independent, and its reliability is unknown) reliable source material about the person. It's entirely possible for an author's writings to be notable while the author him/herself is not, and that appears to be the case here. Not every writer for a TV show, movie, etc., is in themself notable, even if the resulting production is. Finally, note that Wikipedia is not a database or directory, and so does not necessarily include every item in a given "category". Rather, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that includes only notable subjects. If you can point out that online interview, though, that'd be most helpful, but we usually want a little more than just a few interviews. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the pointers. I really want to be a valuable contributor to WP so your help is much appreciated. :) I have added a few more things about Dinnick himself. He makes numerous convention appearances and there is video footage of him in LA that I have linked to. I have found the interview and will link to a podcast he appears on. Google also reveals that he has been quoted by BBC websites on a few occasions with regards to his internet experience. I don't know if this counts as adding notoriety...if you'd have a look at the entry as it is now and let me know if it's any better I'd be grateful. I haven't removed the deletion tag as I think I'd be a bit presumptious of me. I want to get things right and create and edit lots of pages but only if they're any good! Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeschampignon (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, do keep in mind still, that the idea here is reliable and preferably secondary and fact-checked sources. A YouTube video can be used as a primary source, but doesn't really establish notability. The BBC bits certainly might, though.

As far as the proposed deletion goes, though, it really is meant to be for entirely uncontested deletions. You're not required to ask permission to dispute and remove one, and it really is alright! Since you clearly don't agree, I can't in good faith leave it there, so I'll go ahead and remove it, but in the future it really is alright for you to do if you don't agree that a proposed deletion tag is warranted. (There are other deletion processes, such as speedy deletion and articles for deletion where there are certain restrictions on deletion tag removal, but proposed deletion tags may be removed by anyone who disagrees, including the person who initiated the article). As it appears you still are turning up sources, I'll also hold off on any AfD nominations for the moment. Sourcing really is critically important to articles, and we do especially require impeccable sourcing in the biography of a living person, but it might turn out there's enough here to sustain it. You're certainly making an excellent effort, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it. I am quite a Doctor Who fan and I noticed the other day that the Doctor Who Adventures page has a notification that "it reads like an advertisement" and I was thinking I'd have a crack at that, too! I will continue to dig up as many sources as I can with Dinnick. What this experience means is that hopefully I'll be more prepared with sources, etc for when I create further pages in the future. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeschampignon (talk • contribs) 10:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

• News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced

• In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news

• WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?

• Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed

I came across this place, where your edits are being discussed. For what it's worth, I agree with the removal. The rationale is weak for this use, being "To illustrate the appearance of the main characters". Rationales like this almost always find the image being used in a decorative, rather than informative, way. They're usually cut/paste jobs. As to the specific use, the section is short, comprising just eight sentences, and the only additional regular character added that makes this cast photo different is the addition of Moisés Arias, whose appearance in this cast garners one...one...sentence. So we're adding a non-free image to depict one new character, supporting one sentence in the article prose? Utter failure of #1 and #8, where almost all such images fail. Plus, as you note, the image is already available on the list of characters article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I had two signs on my door asking not to be disturbed while I sleep, would you bang on my door to tell me my signs were redundant?

Yes, those two signs may be redundant and not the style-police way of doing things. The fact that two redundant messages weren't enough to prevent your edit shows that maybe I need to add a third message in bright flashing lights? Does it help to wake me to tell me that? Could your offended style sense wait until the 'Increation' tag expires? Does requesting 2 days to create an article on an obsure topic really imply a neurotic attempt to claim ownership?

Thank-you for your threat to block me, hence demonstrating your superior mastery of Wikiquette. Besides, I am rapidly losing the will to edit. You may as well go ahead and delete any articles I have created.

Seraphimblade, I commend your efforts to create goodwill amongst editors.

There seems to be an increasing tendency to value a high number of minor edits spread across WP from an individual editor. I can only hope that chatroulette style editing proves more effective than people wasting time thinking carefully about articles.

Sorry for ranting, but what did you really expect?

Peace, HB Hbachus (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect that when someone is told by two different editors that what they're doing is inappropriate, they'll stop doing it, at least until and unless they can discuss the matter and come up with something people can agree on. I tried converting your note to a hidden comment, that anyone actually editing the article would see, but readers would not. But you cannot have editorial comments like that in an article. I'm sorry if you're offended by that, but while we do allow a lot of things, we don't allow everything. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Seraphimblade. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
Message added 05:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Seraphimblade. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
Message added 05:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources Page

Hi there,

I understand that my page about the Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources has been "speedily" deleted for the following reasons: A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) and G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I wrote this page after noticing that not a lot of major were present on Wikipedia, and used a very similar NGO as a model, namely ICIMOD. I have avoided to insist on ANSAB's significance (first to introduce Forest Stewardship Certification in Nepal, helped to create more than 1,000 economic entities benefitting about 80,000 people throughout the country, represent civil society in the government of Nepal apex level committee on Herbs and NTFP, brought more than 100,000 hectare of forests under sustainable management, created the Nepal NTFP Network and the Private-Public Alliance, manages FAO's Forest Connect network for Nepal, etc.) specifically to avoid G11, but perhaps I should have? I also guess the criteria are more stringent now than when the ICIMOD page was created and that I should have provided "reliable sources independent of the subject" as per the notability guidelines? These could have included:

SCOLARSHIP (2007-2010): - Yale University & FAO - Cornell University - Global Development Conference - Mountain Research and Development - International Association for the Study of Commons - International Forestry Review - IDRC - University of East Anglia - Banko Jankari

NEWS ORGANIZATIONS (2010 only): - France BTP - The Himalayan Times - SciDev.net

Please let me know what changes need to be made to reinstate the page - it would be a shame not to mention ANSAB in Wikipedia as it is one of the most important NGOs in Nepal and one of the most innovative forestry-related NGOs in the developing world.