User talk:Jaydubya93: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:56, 2 April 2014

Jaydubya93, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Jaydubya93! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need help!

Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day needs help. There have been calls for "something special" on Feb 11.

I sort of took the lead, and began "Brainstorming" what "something special" might look like. Well, there are no judgments in brainstorming, so I wrote all kinds of content. In some cases, I would write something, only to add-- in the very same edit, that what I had just written lacked my support.

Unfortunately, what was just "preliminary brainstorming notes" caught the attention of the established mainpage bureaucracy, who misinterpreted my brainstorms as an actual proposal, and legitimately freaked out, since it didn't meet any of the guidelines and was just the insane scribblings of a single editor.

So we got a huge amount of backlash-- eventually I wised up and remove all links to my brainstorms, which is fine, as they never reached a quality that had my support anyway.

We need leaders, and I'm not one of them! lol. But you seem like you're up to the task!

In my estimation, we need two conversations (as proposed by Guy Macon)

"Should we do anything special?"
"If we decide to do something special, what should we do?"

It's critical to make the distinction between "discussing" a timely issue and "participating" in a protest. We may not have the answers-- but we can anticipate the questions.

But the idea desperately needs new attention. I tried to lead it for like three days, and ran it into the ground. You will do better-- you couldn't possibly do worse. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hector - I would be honored to help. And thank you for helping to get this idea off the ground. I've done my best to read over the current documentation but I would like to touch base with you to find out more about what's already been done. I can start creating content today.

This controversy is unlike any issue that Wikipedia's editors and readers have dealt with before. Wikipedia is in a unique position to provide a complete, honest accounting of that controversy. Just as importantly, the ultimate outcome of the controversy will have a huge, long-lasting impact on the Wiki project.

After reading through the the negative feedback to your proposal, I think what is escaping critics is that for us to do nothing in light of this issue is not a neutral position. Feel free to reach me here or contact me via email, my best address is the live.com address at www.joshwieder.com/p/contact-information.html (let me know when you have it so I can remove this info from my talk page). I look forward to getting something accomplished. Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HM and JWya, I wanted to call your attention to User:Sj's comment here. I think s/he's got the right idea and it is time to move on this - Jimbo's is a good place to comment, if you feel to, since this is where the idea sprouted. I agree with your insight, Jaydubya, that there really is no clear way for someone who wants to help, to jump in via the Project talk page. What has happened there is a little bit inevitable with fewer than 10 editors weighing in on what is an extremely contentious issue - total fragmentation and paralysis. In my mind, we need to bring a general RfC to the community about whether we are going forward with this or not - whether it's a banner, the main page or a portal. While that RfC is ongoing, we can simultaneously be organizing volunteers and creating a 'to-so' list for article creation, clean-up and updating, etc. Whether Wiki participates in any way or not, the articles related to this issue are in need of work :D petrarchan47 t c 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Petrarchan47 and SJ-- time for an RFC. I tried taking the lead before, and it didn't work out so well, so I'm not the person to set this up. But if you set it up, I'll be happy to participate. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright time to get started. I agree that for simplicity and ease of communication we need to agree on a single option and push it. All suggestions thus far have involved replacing content on the main page. I support the idea of using primarily existing content and putting a surveillance-focused Featured Article, Did You Know and In the News. I think it will be easier to get that accomplished than a complete black out a la SOPA, there is more relevant content in the encyclopedia on this than SOPA and helps make it clear this is an educational effort. It also helps lighten the work load given time constraints. I also think we should push for the "Wikimania" header link text to be replaced with anchor text regarding "The_Day_We_Fight_Back" and leading to our wiki page on the topic. IMO we could use that to compromise should we receive continued disagreement from those opposed to doing anything. I will retype this idea on Wikipedia_talk:Surveillance_awareness_day/RFC. Please let me know if you approve - if so I will type the RfC and we can get it posted.

My goal is to get the RfC up no later than Monday morning and start marketing it first thing. Jaydubya93 (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just came up with this let me know what you think!

Inasmuch as Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that depends on its users to provide accurate and unbiased content, concerns over widespread government surveillance that could lead to self censorship and retaliation for publishing is a growing issue for Wikipedia editors and readers. Should Wikipedia provide a surveillance-focused set of encyclopedia content for users on February 11 regarding the "Day We Fight Back" online protest? This proposal would involve pointing Featured Article, In the News and Did You Know to Wikipedia content concerning government surveillance while continuing to maintain the highest standards for "NPOV" encyclopedic content. Jaydubya93 (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have had the most blowback and bureaucratic stagnation from proposing anything regarding the main page. I agree with your timeline of Monday morning. I would suggest that we need to gauge whether the community wants to support anything, rather than whether they support a specific plan. The RfC wording (question) has to be extremely clear so that consensus can be gauged more easily. People can argue so many points from this proposal, most of them to do with the main page, which has so many rules. As we found from the earlier Project talk page, main page regulations are close to insurmountable. Being so short on time, it might be more realistic to think of a banner, leading to a portal that would contain related articles and information - all of it in accordance with Wiki's rules. Another option might be to look into a community-wide straw poll, if there is such a thing. petrarchan47 t c 05:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Monaco

I've reverted your edit to the Kelly Monaco article. Non-free files, such as pictures of actors playing parts in television shows and movies, can only be used if no free images are available or could be made. See WP:NFCC#1. Since Monaco is still alive, a free file could still be found or made. Additionally, the image page must have a rationale for using that specific non-free file on each specific article in which it is used. Dismas|^(talk) 13:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't upload the file you're referring to. Its already in use, and has been in use for roughly 9 years on both Kelly Monaco and Sam_McCall. See, for example, Talk:Kelly_Monaco#Infobox and Talk:Kelly_Monaco#Other_picture. Theres a long-standing convo and consensus about using this image. I am going to reinstate the photo one more time and ask that you request consensus from the community before removing it again, because in order for your argument to make sense you need to remove the image from both articles. What I'm saying is you my in fact be right, but this image has been in place on Wikipedia for almost a decade and its inclusion involved a larger discussion that other editors deserve an opportunity to involve themselves in. If we are in violation of fair use by using the image for the actress, its doubtful that the fair use rationale works for the character and for the same reasons - we could use an image from a press conference or convention appearance because the actress is alive and the show still in production, etc. Jay Dubya (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this conversation to Talk:Kelly_Monaco#Use_of_Kelly_Monaco_Image_from_Sam_McCall to allow other editors an opportunity to participate. Jay Dubya (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi, I'd like to thank you for your help on Teobaldo's Nina Mamani article. Thanks, Yasser Caminante77 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! I've been going through unsourced BLPs and came across Nina there. Its an incredibly slow going process. IMO placing a "references needed" tag again isnt whats needed on these articles. When they have been sitting 5-6 years we need to go out and get the sources already (or remove the article until sources exist)! At first I was on the fence about Nina, because all sources I could find were in Spanish or French, and because I was completely ignorant of Nina. I'm glad I put the work in to do the translations. I was able to learn something new, and I was able to avoid damaging the encyclopedia by making a deletion proposal based on ignorance.

Im glad you enjoyed the changes, and welcome any ideas or feedback you might have in the future. Jay Dubya (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Foster

I had to decline your BLPPROD at [1] because of the limitation of that policy to articles created on or after March, 2010--the article predates that. I'd suggest AfD or a regular PROD instead. Sorry for the extra lap! --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I've been going through the list of long-term BLP's without sources and placed quite a few up for removal recently. If anything, I owe you an apology for overlooking the date and placing in the incorrect removal queue. Thanks for your help. Jay Dubya (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your recommendation, I have resubmitted the article for deletion under a generic prod. See Talk:Rachel_Foster for details. You are welcome of course to provide your input and guidance. Cheers, Jay Dubya (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Time-Division Long-Term Evolution article?

Hi Jaydubya93, I'm reaching out to you as you're listed as a member of WikProject:Telecom and I'm wondering if you might be able to help me out with something.

I'm currently working on behalf of Qualcomm to update the article for Time-Division_Long-Term_Evolution, which suffers from a number of issues, as I've detailed on the Talk page. I've prepped a new draft that I think does a better job of covering the topic, and uploaded it to my userspace. Because of my financial conflict of interest, I won't make any of these changes myself. Instead, I'm looking for volunteer editor to review what I've done and, if it looks okay, move it over into the mainspace. Do you think you might have time to review my draft and move it over? I'm also happy to answer any questions or concerns. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris. Thanks for reaching out. I've used Qualcomm gear in the past but have no fiduciary interest in the company. Id be glad to take a look and contribute to the best of my ability. Jay Dubya (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed both drafts and after thorough review and reading the talk page, I've instituted your draft. Well done, its an obvious improvement well-sourced without COI. Please note that your draft will almost certainly be changed moving forward (as all wikipedia articles tend to be). That said, your work and related citations have allowed this piece to take a huge leap forward. Thanks for following the rules and helping with the project. I am happy to help with any questions you might have in the future. Jay Dubya (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited José Luis de Jesús, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For any future (human) readers, this has been fixed. The link now points to American Broadcasting Company. Jay Dubya (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I seen your recent post in BPSN, I'm not sure how to rename to Article...but I would like to take the Almighty off of the title....as it is ambiguous if not rhethorical. How can it get done?208.87.232.180 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Sorry forgot to sign inWnicholas70 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wnicholas. Its my understanding that in order to rename an existing article you need an administrator to do so. Without an administrator you could create a second article with the new name, copy the content to that new article, and replace the content on the old article with a redirect to the new one. Either way, you'll need to get some community support to develop a consensus for the change to the article you mentioned, because its been around since 2012 under its current name. It looks like you are on the right track as you've launched a discussion on the talk page to gather consensus. I will join the discussion there. Also, no big deal but in the future its easiest to get ahold of me on my talk page here: User_talk:Jaydubya93. You can also reach it by clicking the Talk tab at the top of this screen, or using the Talk text link next to my username in my post signatures. Once I know youve seen this reply I will move this discussion there for record keeping. Jay Dubya (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 1 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the The Mystery of the Leaping Fish page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a false positive. I have reported it to the operator. Jay Dubya (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 103: / Line 103: @@
 Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a [[false positive]], you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20{{subst</noinclude>:REVISIONUSER}}&section=new report it to my operator].
 Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->[[User:ReferenceBot|ReferenceBot]] ([[User talk:ReferenceBot|talk]]) 00:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
+:This appears to be a false positive. I have reported it to the operator. [[User:Jaydubya93|Jay Dubya]] ([[User talk:Jaydubya93#top|talk]]) 11:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)