User talk:BenBurch

Violet Blues

Hi BenBurch, I appreciate your edits regarding the Violet Blue / Violetta Blue / Noname Jane scenario, but I reverted the two edits that were clearly overly biased towards the latter. I'd be hard pressed to be convinced that an AVN article pleading the latter's case is the source of an unbiased statement with any validity, and the "single mother" quote is just unnecessary and somewhat spiteful.

I believe the case has been settled, so when/if details are released we'll have some more factual information about what actually happened. Until then, we're just relying on each of their own statements, which clearly doesn't work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KathrynA (talk • contribs) — KathrynA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Replied at editor's page. Mostly reverted the edit. Thanks for signing that one, Mike; She appears to actually BE the author in question from the edits that she has made to that article. Also, I notice that the photo with the article is a publicity shot and I recall that those are ruled out? --BenBurch (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I really don't think that trying to out an editor's real-life identity is a good idea and is probably a policy violation per WP:OUTING. You really should have just noted that she has an apparent conflict of interest without going that route. As to the image, I'm not an expert, but as long as it is properly licensed, I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate for the article. Fair use of living people is not allowed, but this wasn't a fair use image, it was a CC-licenced image. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not outing anybody to observe that a single-purpose account edits nearly immediately after new press on the subject of the article... Note I said "Appear to be" - When somebody on wiki edits as though they were the subject of the article, then that person can be assume to be the subject of the article, and should avoid editing it. --BenBurch (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's not outing anybody to note that they're a single purpose account with a POV problem and likely COI problems. Naming names is a different matter altogether. Note that there is no policy against editing an article on which you have a significant COI, but there is a policy against posting an editor's real name. I just think that you shouldn't be speculating about the real-life identity of any editor. It's sufficient to say that they have a COI without actually naming them. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! --BenBurch (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you mind explaining further why you removed the image from the article? It's a free image from Commons. I don't understand the rationale for removal. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, being a self-portrait of a living person, its a self-published work - not a reliable source. Second, its a publicity still used by the subject. I suggest that somebody other than the subject take a snapshot of her and put it into the public domain, and then we can use that. --BenBurch (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. The image is free to use, per the CC license. It certainly not our policy to require public domain. As far as being from a reliable source, there's nothing wrong with primary source for basic biographical information and I don't think an image is much different. I'm just not seeing what you're objecting to here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going from example here; I've seen similar pictures for other authors removed even though they were placed in commons, and as best as I can I have repeated the rationale given at the time. I defer to more experienced editors (I've only been here a few years) on this matter. So if you want to put it back in, do so, but I think it likely that others will eventually remove it for those reasons. --BenBurch (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me towards an example? I'm not an expert, either and I'd just like to see what you're talking about. I don't want to put it back if it really shouldn't be there. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was done with the Annie Sprinkle article a while back. Annie provided an image and placed it in the public domain, but it was a "replaceable image" because it was a publicity still. A shame too because it was a great picture of her. --BenBurch (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're talking about File:Annie Sprinkle Labcoat Press Photo.jpg, which was a deleted as a replaceable non-free promotional image. It wasn't a public domain image. The stumbling block there being the restriction on commercial use. That's a different circumstance than what we have here, which is a freely licenced image. I'm going to go ahead and reinsert the image. I'm also going to copy this discussion to the article's talk pages, for future reference, if you don't mind.-Chunky Rice (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your concerns in the article's talk page, under the section you added about me. KathrynA (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except it was a free image, but somebody kept changing the tag on it as I recall. --BenBurch (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the image page right now and it clearly says "Redistribution or commercial use is prohibited without permission from Annie Sprinkle." which makes it a non-free image, by Wikipedia's definition. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll put the image back in, then, but I'm pretty sure it won't remain. --BenBurch (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, I'll ask about it over at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions, but I'm fairly confident that the two situations are not analogous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its a BLP issue, not a copyright issue. The principle objections being its use as a publicity still and its self-published nature. Now, another image not self-published and not so-used would be unobjectionable. --BenBurch (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, that's a different reason from why the Annie Sprinkle image was deleted, and not one I'm familiar with. There's no BLP reason that a free publicity photo shouldn't be used, but since you already started a section at the BLP noticeboard, I'll ask the question there. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! --BenBurch (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just leave it and see if anybody else ever objects. I'm just trying to make the article conform, and don't really care one way or the other. --BenBurch (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Too late. Still, like I said, I don't want to put it in there if it's not supposed to be there, either. No harm in asking for wider input. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever! Thanks! :-) --BenBurch (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Okay. I won't change it again. I just think the "junior" and "senior" labels are only helpful if we're talking about two senators from the same state. Then it might be nice to know which one has been serving longer. But if we're only talking about one senator, if we're talking about senators from different states, and especially if we're talking about a national website (wikipedia) I don't understand how the labels are helpful. I won't change it again. Sorry. Thank you.

Hey, BenBurch. How are you? LynneSin and I were just messing with the page. We intended to return it to its normal status as soon as we were ond poking at each other on DU.

Hope you're well.

Midlo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camielmom (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue

Howdy, I went ahead and deleted the redirect you created for the given name of Violet Blue. From what I was able to piece together, there has been considerable concern that this amounted to "outing" the identity of someone, based on original research. Wikipedia, of course, can not be used for such a purpose. I apologize if this understanding is incorrect. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing Violet Blue into Boing Boing entry

Hi, Ben, I've been following attempts to force references to Violet Blue into the Boing Boing entry. These edits are coming from "Wikiwikimoore" and other users who may either be friends or aliases. "Wikiwikimoore" is Violet Blue's boyfriend, he self-identified as such on her talk page, and it looks like he's edited under IP addresses and other aliases. The non-news in question is something Blue blogged about and has asked other friends and co-workers to blog about for apparent personal gain.

You entered into the discussion and intervened in the edit process for the Violet Blue entry, but exactly the same activity is going on at the Boing Boing page. The editors who are forcing this issue this appear to be doing so for conflicted, personal reasons (particularly so in the case of Jonathan Moore/Wikiwikimoore, who has had a personal relationship with the subject for more than a year, as documented on Blue's own blog).

I can't resolve the situation myself without falling into an edit war, and would appreciate very much if you would consider intervening with whatever you feel to be appropriate in the Boing Boing entry, as you did in the Violet Blue entry. Thank you. Norquist9 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you

Hello Ben,

Its good to see you contributing around Wikipedia again. I haven't done all that much here for quite a while either, but I just wanted you to know that it has always been a pleasure to work with you. And if I remember correctly, you are also from Illinois, so I hope you've been able to take some time out this spring and enjoy our first place Cubs and White Sox! Have a great day.--RWR8189 (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Feeling is mutual! Yes, we are loving this weather! AND the Cubs! (OK, the Sox too.) --BenBurch (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And some of us like Ben despite him being a flatlander and a Cubs fan. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful saying you like me; Somebody might accuse YOU of a COI too! LOL. Seriously, Mike, I'll recuse myself from the VB thing if you think I should, but I have no axe to grind there except that I want the published truth to be in the article, and to not have it be a publicity vehicle for ANYBODY. Not VB, not NJ. --21:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Print

I happened to see your post on Talk:Boing Boing: “I didn't make the "in print" rule, Norquist didn't make the "in print" rule. That rule was made here long ago and underpins this whole project.” and was wondering if you could point out to me where “the ‘in print’ rule” can be found – I’ve never heard of it before in my life. --Random832 (contribs) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to!

The appropriate policies and guidelines for these are found at:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing.
Wikipedia:No original research what is, and is not, valid information.
Wikipedia:Verifiability what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified. ( See particularly WP:RS )
Wikipedia:Citing sources sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style articles should follow this style guide

These can be abbreviated to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:MOS respectively.

From WP:RS;

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

and

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.

So - published means just that, in print. Blog entries, even if on the site of a print journal are not published, and are opinion pieces not subject to the same editorial standards as the print version of the story. That's the standard. --BenBurch (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, published does not mean in print - who told you that? --Random832 (contribs) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any number of editors and admins over the years when removing things I referenced. If that's not the standard, its what is enforced. --BenBurch (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused of being a print bigot, but I must clarify: some "blogs" are in fact part of the editorial content of a publication or other reliable sources, if they are fully monitored and subject to the same editorial control which makes an RS an RS. The NY Times and other publications do give their reporters blog space for news reportage (not opinion pieces), especially in expert subject matters. These are part of the publication, and just as much reliable sources as what lands on somebody's doorstep.--Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dispute tag

Who do you think you're talking to? I've been here longer then you. Do I even need to mention your understanding of the word 'published'? I am well aware of 3RR. Thanks a bunch.Yeago (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, OK, next time I won't tell you when you are about to do that. Sheesh. --BenBurch (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if you were simply being a good samaritan, its just that I find it rather odd you chose to warn me of 3RR, an editor who has been here for 5 years, and yet leave the anon user page reverting me alone, who clearly would have been the one requiring the warning.Yeago (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here since 2005 (and was IP editing long before that) and I know you can get upset and lost count. --BenBurch (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that none of this upsets me. If violet's page was deleted tomorrow for non-notability, I wouldn't put up a fight. I find her writing rather boring.Yeago (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. If I want a sex author Annie Sprinkle is more my taste. She at least knows what she's talking about. --BenBurch (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Praying_Darklady.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Praying_Darklady.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Roskam

Hi Ben. Thanks for your help on the Peter Roskam article. I think that you should apologize to Wikidemo. I'm not sure what he said that you took as an insult, but accusing him of being a sock of Joehazelton was unfounded and unhelpful (and insulting). As R. Baley said, you could have checked his contributions. Let's try to maintain civility among all of the legitimate editors. — goethean ॐ 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done --BenBurch (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI... it would appear the Republican office holder is locked down and owned? Not very wiki, considering that it would appear those, who are controlling that article are democrats. That would seem to be in conflict with any reasonable notion of fairness, but I guess no one cares.Garywheaton (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, Republicans are welcome to edit this article. We had trolls, so new users are locked out. Propose your changes in the talk page and if they are supported by citations to reliable publications, they absolutely will get into the article. --BenBurch (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them get banned... Sorry but I'm very cynical, considering when looking at the editing history of Republican office holders in northern Illinois and seeing what was done and the lack of good faith in 80% of it. In my humble opinion, the Peter Roskam is a badly flawed and bias work. The bio lacks neutrality and is overloaded with inflammatory nonsense. The petty, bold face strong arming is not very civil. The "YOUR JOE H so YOUR BANNED" when strong,logical argument is presented, that is self evident by my overview look at the editing history of the Roskam bio. Bias and lack of the good faith and game playing, partisan nonsense is all that is happening now and all of what wikipedia seems to be about now. Its not about the truth or NPOV its now about game play.Garywheaton (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Editing of Benbirch

hey benbirch? what gives? vital information i inserted for randi rhodes wound up getting deleted and reverted to the original edit. please tell me ben, dear. please tell me.

Amandajoan1872 (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]