User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2009/July

Proposed deletion of United Airlines Flight 955

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article United Airlines Flight 955, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. The aircraft was still taxiing and there were no injuries or fatalities.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. APK coffee talk 08:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathic humor

For your enjoyment:

• Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science

• "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it."

-- Brangifer (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Dakota disaster

Hi, Thanks for your message. As you will have seen, I've working from a translation of the Dutch accident report. Am ploughing my way through it, abouts two-third's done. If you would like to assist, the history of the aircraft needs researching. I know that it started with the USAAF, and the previous operator before it was purchased by the DDA was in Finland. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have several questions for you

Rather than paste the same information here on your talk page, will you please respond to my comments and question posted here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarahjjohnson123/Archive. Thank you for your time and attention. Otto Placik (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but I'll paste it here, as that SPI is closed and archived.LeadSongDog come howl 06:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC) --- I am a little confused here. If you have two individuals working part time in the same office sharing the same computer, how do I avoid charges of sockpuppetry? Is there simpler ways of discussing this without having to learn a whole new language? There is no easy tutorial on how to respond appropriately?

Please read WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE. LeadSongDog come howl 16:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read this and appealed the block. I subsequently discussed this with Fred Bauder who then suggested that I create a new user name. He, in fact, created myu user name here for your reference. User talk:Fred Bauder. So there are no new editors created by me to sway the discussion. For that matter there has been no discussion other than posting images with no links. I have posted my name as source and my user name has author on the image information page. How else would you suggest that I proceed? I would like to quote WP:MEAT here: "While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users... The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care." So I must ask you, why are you assuming bad faith when steps have been followed and requests complied with in an orderly fashion? And why do you choose to be derogatory? What else should I do? Do you want me to fade off and disappear? Why don't you extend your hand, provide some instruction to a neophyte and make this a more nurturing and pleasant environment rather than levy accusations? Do you find the images that distrubing or distasteful? Pleae respond. Otto Placik (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

The reason I provided those links to WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE was for your education. If you have read them now, as you say, you will understand both that the term was an appropriate description for having your associates edit on your behalf and how to avoid repeating the problem behaviour. From WP:SHARE: "When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." If others are editing on behalf of you or of your practice (as it appears) they, like you, should attend carefully to this guidance.LeadSongDog come howl 06:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily but I feel compelled to clarify the record. User:sarahjjohnson123 is a young individual working in the office (if you want to verify her real name and identity, it can easily be confirmed by visiting the website but I don't want to post a link for fear of being labeled a self-promoter). She is well versed in the internet and finds Wikipedia to be an exciting community in which to participate. It was her idea to initially (and not on my behalf) provide photos which would supplement the articles on the procedures. However, not being a surgeon, herself, she utilized my library of photos with my consent. She provided credit to me albeit with links which have since been removed as she came to learn that this was inappropriate. Due to the time of completing paperwork for OTRS, she also educated emilymiller123 in what she thought was a worthwhile project. This stimulated your claims of sockpuppetry and the subsequent blocking of my IP address preventing me from establishing a username. I appealed the block and User:Fred Bauder created a new user account for me which then prompted you to raise the derogatory flag of meatpuppetry. I can ask Sarah and Emily's contributions to cease forever if it creates the appearance of sockpuppetry. That would seem the most straightforward and easiest way to comply with your interpretation of this "controversial topic". I otherwise don't understand why it would really make a difference who uploads the photos. Their connection to me is not being concealed as the link indicated. Nor did I consider photographic contributions to be considered: 1)editing or 2) a commuity discussion, or 3) a dispute, or 4) edit warring, or 5) a controversial topic. I feel educated andwill attend carefully to this guidance and I collectively apologize for the "problem behavior" and those past transgressions of WP:SHARE Does that meet with your expectations? Otto Placik (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The point of the OTRS system is that it permits anonymity of editors to be reasonably well protected, there is no need to disclose their real identities. You are perhaps confusing Wikipedia with The commons, a fairly easy mistake to make. Each of these accounts was registered on both websites, but they are distinct communities with distinct rules. The images were uploaded to the commons and links to them were added into articles on WP. In both communities, the use of community resources for the furtherance of one's own goals is seen as a conflict of interest. Adding links to your own website is seen as advertising. Putting your personal name or practice name as part of the image file name or file description is not far removed. Adding in the links from WP using another account or IP such as this is where it crosses the line to puppetry, but simply noting on the article's talkpage that the accounts are related can avoid having the puppetry being abusive.LeadSongDog come howl 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize but I am having a difficult time understanding your last sentence. What is WP? Wikipedia? As far as I can tell I don't have any links on the picture to which you refer. I am using my user name. This was suggested and created by Fred Bauder. I can forward you the email or you can see the page here [[1]] Can you explain? Perhaps I am confused between Wikimedia Commons (WC) and Wikipedia (W) but it is my understanding that you have to upload to WC in order to post images to W? Is that my mistake? Can you upload directly to W without going through WC and thereby eliminate the link to which you refer? I can eliminate the file description if that is what you are referring. Please give me a little more explicit direction. I don't quite get the link issue. I truly am confused. To which link are you referring on the buttock image? I can repeat: there is no link... there is no link... there is no link. Am I crazy? To which link do you refer? Your reference has no link. The user:paravis [[2]] uses links but you do nothing to criticze him. If there is a link to which you can refer I will gladly remove it. Otto Placik (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP is the usual abbreviation for Wikipedia.

1. The image file on Commons can be referred to either by its full URL http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Placik_Buttock_Lift.jpg or by the internal wikilink [[:commons:File:Dr._Placik_Buttock_Lift.jpg]] , both of which render as [[:commons:File:Dr. Placik Buttock Lift.jpg]].
2. That file on commons has "Dr. Placik" as part of the file name.
3. It also has "Otto Placik" in its author field, and "Dr. Otto J. Placik Board Certified..." in its description field. The author field would suffice for proper attribution.
4. The description field should describe the subject matter, not the author.
5. The permission field, rather than a name, could simply be "author" or "uploader, own work" plus the OTRS ticket.
6. The file name would be less problematic simply as [[:commons:File:Buttock Lift.jpg]] .
7. Everyone struggles with metadata on commons at first, it's poorly documented and often counterintuitive. It's necessary to look at the results.
8. The link I referred to is on the Wikipedia page Buttock augmentation to instantiate that image file into the page, and reads [[File:Dr._Placik_Buttock_Lift.jpg]] without needing the explicit ":commons:" in the link. Again, if you move that file on commons to simply File:Buttock Lift.jpg the advertising problem is solved. Unfortunately there is no simple "move" or "rename" functionality available on commons, but as explained at commons:FAQ#How can I rename/move an image or other media file?

it is still possible to achieve the same end with a fresh upload.

Thanks. That makes it more clear. I still will need to look into the Wikipedia page and I am looking right at it and still do not see the link to which you repeateldy refer to "instantiate that image". Is there anyway you can reproduce the image and highlight the exact location of the link. I have repeatedly pulled up the page and the image and no not see a ":commons:" in the link. The same page to which you refer contains two other images, each of which use the term "self portrait" in the description field. Doesn't that violate your recommandation against describing the author? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik (talk • contribs) 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Otto Placik (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Try clicking on this diff. It shows the addition by User:75.63.221.230 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) of an image link to: [[image:Dr. Placik Buttock Lift.jpg|right|thumb|300px|buttock and thigh dermolipectomy]] . The link appears on the right side of the rendered page as a 300 pixel wide thumbnail image with the caption "buttock and thigh dermolipectomy". Clearer?LeadSongDog come howl 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats really strange. When I click on the link your provide:this diff, the rendered page is the article with editorial comments at the top. The file name to which you refer is highlighted in green and enclosed in brackets but it does not appear to be an active link. I cannot click on it or go to that page. The image is located lower on the page but it has an appropriate caption with no link. What am I missing? Interestingly when I put in "buttock augmentation" in the search box, the page renders but now without my photo so I am not sure what is going on???? Thanks for sticking with this and walking me through the process. It must be frustrating for you as an experienced Wikipedian.Otto Placik (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you've never seen a WP:DIFF before. It's a before-and-after display for one or more edits. It shows the differences in the wikitext, not the rendered html. For instance the edit you just made here was this. It's read-only.LeadSongDog come howl 21:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. I did not know the link was listed in the diff. I either: 1) kept looking at the image itself and saw no link or 2) clicked on the image itself which leads you to a new page which lists the image summary. Neither of these had a classic hyperlink. How do you get the the diff for any page? Otto Placik (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Near the top of the page, follow the history tab. You'll see a list of versions. Pick the radio buttons for the two versions you want to compare and then click on the "Compare these versions" button at the top of the list.LeadSongDog come howl 13:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! This old dog learned a new trick Otto Placik (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh well! Maybe it's a moot point because someone just took that image down and I am not sure why or how or whom.Otto Placik (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Thanks! I noticed that new names were being used, so now I am using the new template names. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Peak oil GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Peak oil for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha

No, no jatlas imposters... Thats me, I thought I had to set up a new account for wiki commons, since I wanted to upload those pictures. Thanks for looking out... Feel free to tweak the agaricus or medicinal mushroom pages, I wasn't trying to bully you out of changing them earlier. Jatlas (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To preclude accusations of sockpuppet abuse, you might put a signed statement on your userpage acknowledging the other account. I know it seems obvious, but... LeadSongDog come howl 02:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Polysaccharide-K Article

Is there a way to get any of the data from this deleted article? Please let me know, I am just interested in the references used in the article. I would like to rewrite the basics of it. Thanks Jatlas2 (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC) And where is the copyright problems?! The website I saw listed (which I assume is the source of the conflict) was a fraction of the original article. So the deletion doesn't make any sense. Hopefully I am missing something... Please get back to me when you get a chance this was a great article previously. Thanks Jatlas2 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The details are at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 July 1. Moonriddengirl might be able/willing to undelete and userspace it. Good luck.LeadSongDog come howl 03:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whats going on... The page that was listed as the source of the "copyright" problems was a skimpy webpage. The former PSK article was huge. Jatlas (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about the bot! I was unaware of the proper procedure. Jatlas (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question Regarding Edits/Deletion of Content

I just want to clarify regarding deletion of one's content. Discussions at [3]. Someone made a deletion of my entries with my consent, but changes were not granted given that it's under Wikipedia and public domain. If I were the author, given the contributions with cited sources, yet take back those changes myself, then is it therefore allowed and not deemed as vandalism? Please respond. Thank you.--Roannevista (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

See Help:Revert and WP:Delete to get the flavour. Generally speaking a choice by the adding editor to remove their own addition is assumed to be a good-faith edit, but remember that Wikipedia is not censored. If in doubt it's always better to discuss it first at the article's talk page.LeadSongDog come howl 19:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AF447

Thank you for removing the IP's insertion of the blog. It seems like he or she also added in Sweden, but there is something odd happening with the diffs and I'm not 100% sure. Regards -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems correct. See this, which cites this 5 July 2009 story about the identification of the Swedish woman, resident in Brasil, travelling with her 5 year old son (his nationality is not stated). Google translation helps, but not much.LeadSongDog come howl 18:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rapid response highly appreciated. Glad I left it to someone else's discretion. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)