User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden
|
Ok - so I was having a bit of a zen moment, hence the name of this particular corner of the wiki. This is the page where I'd like to reflect on my wiki experiences, talk with friends, colleagues, people who disagree with any of my ideas, or find me wanting in any way - all are welcome. |
Wiki Mentoring
The specific inspiration for this page has been a recommendation that I seek out a 'mentor', and I thought that as well as doing that, I'd keep the process entirely open. I've cajoled User:Lar to accept the official hat from me, but I'd actually like to be mentored by you, wiki reader - whomever you may be. Feel free to edit below, ask questions, make suggestions - It'd be great for this to be a very 'wiki' mentoring experience.
being bold, stupid, or both?
A month ago I filed a request for my editing restriction on biographies to be lifted - 12 days after filing that request (as you'll see) - I made a post indicating what I thought was the best way forward. There was some discussion of this, and I stopped editing biographies.
I'd like to give this approach another try - partly because I don't have huge faith that the arb. clarification / appeal / request process actually facilitates useful resolution, and partly because this sort of feels like a ruling which could be ignored?. I've no desire to cause distress or disruption, but am tempted to return to that position. Whaddya reckon? - Privatemusings (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Strikes me as unwise. You are a fan of the east, I am sure. Most eastern martial arts philosophies suggest that the most effective counter is not the head on assault... this isn't a war but the analogy to be drawn is apt.
- Rightly or wrongly, in my view, the path to redemption here is to hew to the restrictions placed and demonstrate that you're adding value. You've added a lot of value. Keep doing that. Several Arbs commented then (if I read them correctly) that it was a matter of time. If you REALLY want to participate in helping fix these BLPs, make a subpage here somewhere and let other interested editors look in and see. Time permitting, if I evaluate your suggestions and think they're good, I'll carry them out and then comment why they are good. Get a few other editors doing that and you can build up a track record of sound contribution in this area without violating the letter or spirit of the sanction. ++Lar: t/c 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, Lar. User:Vintagekits does something similar by having a subpage where he lists articles he intends to create, and then other editors and/or administrators let him know if he should proceed or if there is a concern about him violating his editing restrictions; this would be a logical variation. Risker (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Note above that PM has identified two articles that might benefit from attention. I'd encourage him to take those one or two liners and turn them into somewhat more detailed subpages that contain actionable items. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- see history of page.. Privatemusings (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Note above that PM has identified two articles that might benefit from attention. I'd encourage him to take those one or two liners and turn them into somewhat more detailed subpages that contain actionable items. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Might I suggest the {{Request edit}} feature as a way PM could point out BLP issues and propose fixes? MBisanz talk 17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought PM was not even allowed on BLP talk pages. If that's incorrect, then yes, the {{Request edit}} approach is perfect. But if it is, then the side page approach is needful. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oopsie, I didnt know the rules of the thingy, yea, separate page is the best way to go, but when that page needs a proposed edit reviewed, {{Request edit}} might work. MBisanz talk 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought PM was not even allowed on BLP talk pages. If that's incorrect, then yes, the {{Request edit}} approach is perfect. But if it is, then the side page approach is needful. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good idea, Lar. User:Vintagekits does something similar by having a subpage where he lists articles he intends to create, and then other editors and/or administrators let him know if he should proceed or if there is a concern about him violating his editing restrictions; this would be a logical variation. Risker (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
<- thanks all for the responses - this is exactly the sort of thing that I think is most useful.. some replies;
Whilst I'm more than happy to suggest some changes in the most controversial areas (and will do so below) - my idea was to follow a softer gradient - as detailed in the 'totally uncontroversial' bit in the section above. The chap on the right is a small tangible example of this - but I rather balk at the idea of asking someone else to drop a few notes here and there to identify the chap, then add him to his article - it's a bit of a boring job, though one that I'd happily do myself...
Another example of the sort of thing I thought I might do to ease myself back into BLP editing is to make improvements to articles I come across through the Random button - first article up (today) was Rashed_Al-Mugren - which would be improved, in my view, by replacing 'football (soccer)' with either 'football', 'football'
You'll see above in the 'little bit more controversial' section, that I think it may also be necessary to mark this article for deletion - because it's completely unsourced - my feeling is that uncontroversial stubs are likely to be the least harmful to allow to remain, although if you squint at it, I suppose it might be offensive to claim someone is saudi if they're not, and some people may be upset by inaccurate birthdates?. Thoughts on that most welcome.
In particular I'm interested in what anyone things about the idea of 'gradient' - are these areas ok? Am I making sense / sensible judgments? Should I focus (here) on demonstrating my behaviours in the most controversial areas? Thoughts most welcome....
Update - I dropped a note in to the WikiProject Rugby League about this chap - even though I actually think it might be contrary to the terms of my sanction, just seems silly not to... feedback welcomed... Privatemusings (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
3rd Update (the 2nd was adding the chap's name to the caption) - I really do think this would improve the article, and am sorely tempted to do so myself - this would be against the terms of my restriction, and I would be ignoring that rule... would this be a bad thing? dunno..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)slaps right hand and moves the mouse away from the 'edit' button... :-)
4th Update - it's pretty stupid of me to ask the same question over and over and hope for a different response... it's actually very (very) clear that the prevailing wisdom here is that my making any such edit would not be helpful. Whilst that frustrates and dismays me somewhat, I will obey the ruling. I don't really get it though.. and that may be a problem - the sad thing is that the only way I can figure out 'internally' to resolve it is just to stop caring.. and I don't like that! hey ho... all feedback most welcome.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions for Controversial Pages
Giovanni di Stefano
First I really must add a disclaimer here - that the GdS article is really a very hot potato - with possible serious consequences not only for the project, but for those who edit the article personally. GdS states that he is suing named editors for 50million euros in Italy - if you read the sources available you'll also note that GdS has stated that he has sued many others, some of whom report being unaware of any legal action to this day.
So it's not only a wikipedia hot potato, but a real world one too. There's a whole bunch of stuff in the wiki-past about this article - I feel that I was incredibly badly treated for no good reason - but here are two tangible suggestions to improve the article;
- Giovanni di Stefano (born July 1, 1955 in Pertrella Tifernina, near Campobasso, Italy) is a European lawyer[citation needed] based in Italy.
- It's my view that the European lawyer requires a source.
- actually - I think it should read; Giovanni di Stefano (born July 1, 1955 in Pertrella Tifernina, near Campobasso, Italy) is a lawyer based in Italy.
- The article and talk page history should be restored where possible. The deletion rationale should be discussed 'on-wiki' in my view. I'm happy to go into this in general terms, or whatever level of detail is considered appropriate.
An update - the recent edits at the article, and talk, pages are quite interesting! - Looks like this is in pretty good hands. The sources now quoted in detail on the talk page are the reason the talk page history remains deleted, ironically enough - on a rationale of 'Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for' (see here for an interesting exchange prior to one of my indefinite blocks...) - heaps of stuff to talk about here if anyone's interested, otherwise I'm just glad the article is moving in the right direction!! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- It'd be great to get the history undeleted at this point - absolutely all the material deemed to be inappropriate to the point of requiring deletion is now either in the article, or on the talk page (that, and much worse actually!) - there are many reasons why an undeletion is a good idea, and were I unrestricted, I'd suggest it! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why would undeletion be a good idea? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- If all the deleted material is now back on the existing talk page, but it's now accompanied by proper context, then let's not open that can of worms. On related news, I found on the internets what look slike a copy of the old article that was deleted per BLP http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Giovanni_Di_Stefano , and let me tell you that it's of horrible quality and very badly sourced, no wonder it got deleted, it's probably up to the standards of 2004, with no inline references and stuff, so you can't check if the end of the first paragraph under "Political ambitions" is a sourced fact or if it is an editorial opinion by some biased editor who hates the guts of Giovanni. I don't want to imagine how bad the talk page must have been. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- hmmm.. I'm happy enough to let this one lie at the mo.. but still am kinda of the opinion that the deleted revisions should be returned baring a clear and present legal issue (anything 'per Mike Godwin' would be sensible, of course) - I think the license compliance issues, and the advantage of being able to see how a difficult article evolved, in order to learn wider lessons, would merit the return of the history. I'm always open to a 'left turn' though - which may include a discussion of my BLP editing there instead (I guess this is in some ways the heart of the matter?) - I think admin.s can see the revisions cited by arbcom here (there are only three) - so feedback on them most welcome... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)ps. enric - well done! - you're doing a great job at the article now, and I wish you well with it! - I think it's vastly improved.
- Thanks, man, I do what I can :) You are right on seeing how a difficult article evolved, I would like to see those talk pages to see what problems arised at that time, but I'm not an admin. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- hmmm.. I'm happy enough to let this one lie at the mo.. but still am kinda of the opinion that the deleted revisions should be returned baring a clear and present legal issue (anything 'per Mike Godwin' would be sensible, of course) - I think the license compliance issues, and the advantage of being able to see how a difficult article evolved, in order to learn wider lessons, would merit the return of the history. I'm always open to a 'left turn' though - which may include a discussion of my BLP editing there instead (I guess this is in some ways the heart of the matter?) - I think admin.s can see the revisions cited by arbcom here (there are only three) - so feedback on them most welcome... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)ps. enric - well done! - you're doing a great job at the article now, and I wish you well with it! - I think it's vastly improved.
- If all the deleted material is now back on the existing talk page, but it's now accompanied by proper context, then let's not open that can of worms. On related news, I found on the internets what look slike a copy of the old article that was deleted per BLP http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Giovanni_Di_Stefano , and let me tell you that it's of horrible quality and very badly sourced, no wonder it got deleted, it's probably up to the standards of 2004, with no inline references and stuff, so you can't check if the end of the first paragraph under "Political ambitions" is a sourced fact or if it is an editorial opinion by some biased editor who hates the guts of Giovanni. I don't want to imagine how bad the talk page must have been. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why would undeletion be a good idea? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
<- well it was a pretty odd one... hopefully the admin.s around here might be willing to take a look, and restore at least some of the history.. we'll see! (by the way my draft of the article was deleted as 'libellous content' - and from recollection it looked at least a little bit like yours! I think I've got a copy of the text somewhere, and will try and dig it out to review.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- ok... I found it, and reviewed it.. and would like to post it in a subpage here. I was a bit surprised that it upset and angered me a bit, to be honest - I'd like some sunlight on this for the record, in due course...... Privatemusings (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- If it was deleted as libellous, then don't repost on wikipedia, as it will speedied as recreation of deleted content WP:CSD#G4 or even as BLP-problematic WP:CSD#G10, and you will get again into trouble for BLP problems. Actually, you shouldn't repost it anywhere, as you will probably also get in trouble if you repost it off-site :P (man, it must totally suck to have been the target of an Arbcom case).
- Send me a copy by email and I'll check it out. If my draft is very similar to your draft, then I'll ask the deleting admin to review it and see if it should also be deleted. I suppose that my draft does not have those problems because nobody has said anything after having a lot of visibility on the talk page of the article and now being on a RFC, but better make sure. I can also see what problems the other draft had that caused the deletion for being "libellous", so I can avoid them on this one. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've sent it over... I should add by the way that I hadn't considered the possibilities of attribution at the point I drafted that version (as in 'The BBC reported in... etc.') - and I do see merit in that approach. I've also asked for further advice about restoring that page somewhere here, so we'll see how that goes..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, man, your draft is very different, you had me worried there :) I reply by email on the differences. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- thanks heaps for taking a look, and getting back to me Enric... I totally agree with the points you made in your email about the devil being in the details... I suspect that the degree of difference in the drafts may also be a question of level of zoom... from my perspective both are far from libellous, though yours is far superior! (and your mileage may vary... IANAL and all that...!) - I feel I've learned quite a lot watching your work over there... and we'll see if some of your off-wiki analysis might be permissible 'on-wiki' at some point... that's another benefit of getting some of this stuff out in the open.. others may be able to see the benefits of clear 'best practice' (your approach) with a specfic context.... we'll see.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, man, your draft is very different, you had me worried there :) I reply by email on the differences. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've sent it over... I should add by the way that I hadn't considered the possibilities of attribution at the point I drafted that version (as in 'The BBC reported in... etc.') - and I do see merit in that approach. I've also asked for further advice about restoring that page somewhere here, so we'll see how that goes..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Send me a copy by email and I'll check it out. If my draft is very similar to your draft, then I'll ask the deleting admin to review it and see if it should also be deleted. I suppose that my draft does not have those problems because nobody has said anything after having a lot of visibility on the talk page of the article and now being on a RFC, but better make sure. I can also see what problems the other draft had that caused the deletion for being "libellous", so I can avoid them on this one. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Jonathan King
The talk page is worth a review... (and I think my old-persona User:Purples acquits himself passably, though I'm not certain I would now take the exact same approach - all feedback about all comments there most welcome!).
The article in the third paragraph of this section states "He ran Decca Records twice" - review this section (and some sections just below it) for my rationale for why this should read "He was involved in running Decca Records".
There are also some interesting weight issues, and the article has some problems generally creeping in not-so-great directions.... following feedback on the above, I'm certainly prepared to create a subpage to demonstrate further improvements...
Once again, thanks heaps one and all for swinging by here... I'll re-factor as we go to try and keep this easily manageable, and if anyone has any questions at all, or other suggestions, please do feel free to pipe up! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
ps.. this from the lead "His application for review has been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008." requires a source... Privatemusings (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser / and my issues with past problems
I've dug quite deeply into both general, and specific issues concerning the ethical management of dispute resolution - specifically things like the 'checkuser' function and how it is used... this is something I'd plan on raising in appropriate forums.... happy to discuss this further too!
- I got a bit frustrated on this one today, and posted a message to the mailing list, which I now feel wasn't the best context (nor did I probably make my point very well! oh well....) - the catalyst was a discussion representing what is really quite longstanding issues, which look to me to be personal on some levels... but I dunno...
- My thing at the moment is trying to work out this one. How did DG connect the user name 'Petesmiles' to this account? My checking the contributions of User:Petesmiles, User:Purples, and User:Privatemusings leaves some questions..... it's also important to note that this private email was also shared, most likely via a controversial mailing list, which I consider unethical and deeply offensive. Privatemusings (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
My Checkuseree Info
Just for the record, I've been told that I've been 'checkusered' 12 times, by 10 checkusers, on 9 dates - this probably involves a lot of double checking etc. - and the most prominent rationale is 'checking up on a known abusive sockpuppeteer'.
Hopefully further info. on the dates may be forthcoming - obviously the stated rationale is a little circular from some perspectives! Privatemusings (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've no special knowledge of this case, but I do think you do yourself no benefit by caring about this. i.e. your still here, arnt ya? by all means keep musing, but if you start getting accusatory, people get defensive, especially when they are volunteers and are, for the most part, doing exactly what is expected of them.
- As far as I can tell, your privacy has not been violated. Wikipedia is a website, and there are people assigned to investigate this type of thing. This data is available on every website you visit, and our processes for protecting that data are better than most. The curious part is that you can actually speak to the people who do this checking. This place would be a lot simpler if everyone assumed that they will be checkusered at times, and that the simplest way to avoid issues is to ensure that checkuser is as boring as possible. Drop the checkusers an email if you know there is going to be some strange pattern in your CU data. In some senses this is a case of "you have nothing to fear if you do nothing wrong", which is bad logic, but I am not suggesting that is the logic in play - but that is just the worst case scenario. Besides, if someone wanted to know personal details about you, they would have better results by asking me rather than asking a checkuser, cause I could social engineer it out of the people you trust. My point is, if I understand my own screed, that you have better things to worry about, smoke and mirrors are not conducive to collegial discussions, and there is no such thing as anonymity unless you create a new account for every edit, or edit very eradically and don't communicate with anyone, but where is the fun it that. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- points taken, John.... I probably should try to explain further at some point why I haven't chosen not to care about this (at this stage...) - but for now I'll just say that I largely agree with your position (and the points you make) - and would like the policy pages to reflect it a bit more.... you missed the simplest way to find out stuff about me, of course - which is just to ask!! - I may not give you my cellphone details, but I'll buy anyone a drink if they're passing through Sydney! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The 'Privatemusings' Clause
I've just been catching up today with the policy discussions related to the arbcom finding in my case, which appears to not have made it into policy. I guess for me there's an outstanding question therefore as to the status of that principle. It would seem not to hold true in current policy, and I'm not sure that it ever did.... does this have any implications for the rest of the case?
I note that I was also found to have operated 8 accounts "well outside of policy" (and established norms) - if the finding of fact relates to the principle which seems to not actually hold, is doubt cast here too? - obviously it would seem that the finding of fact that I edited BLPs inappropriately is the one which relates to my current editing restriction - but there may be some questions herein anywhoo....
to be honest, I find it hard to take a look at that stuff without finding it all unfortunate, silly, and a bit depressing. It's my feeling that the case should be set aside - but failing that, I'll be very happy as / when / if I can be allowed to edit unrestricted..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Today's Random Button
2nd article up today (after a country house) was Scott_Mulholland - it's poor and needs significant culling and should likely be deleted. I would nominate it for deletion in 5 days as unsourced if poss.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well I've hacked away at it a bit. Perhaps you can point out some sources here for the biggest leaps of faith in the article, and someone like myself can add them in. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- hey, it's good to see you here, John! - you've probably gathered that this is a sort of 'privatemusings improvement zone' - and any and all comments on all of the stuff above are most welcome! thanks for coming!
- Re : that particular article, as I mentioned above, it came up through my clicking of the 'random' button - and I'd like to be able to edit in what I view as uncontroversial areas.... With regard to the content, I don't really doubt that Scott M was a promising young footballer whose career was sadly cut short a bit through injury - I've also been trying to form a consistent view about what to do about articles which have absolutely no sources... if my interest were tweaked in coming across such an article, then I'd probably start off with the 'ol Google searches, and go from there in improving the article... but if not (and I hope it can be taken absolutely without prejudice, that in this case I remain a little unmoved!) - I think it's probably best to nominate the article for deletion in 5 days and move on.. applying that tag to this article would be my suggestion - which I'm happy to talk about! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I couldnt let lar have all the fun. That article is now on my watchlist; it will not be deleted. :P Now, how can we improve it? John Vandenberg (chat) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well I would think a few sources would be a great start! - I rather suspect the painter Scott might even be a bit more notable? - Either ways, I'd probably start off by stubifying the article then - leaving only verifiable information from places like this - although the first result looks pretty good, the second is more par for the course unfortunately! - I'll bung a stub version in a subpage here when I get the chance to show you what I mean.... Do you think it's a poor approach to 'prod' such articles as you find them? - My feeling is that we're really far from coping at the moment, and, as I explain above, if I didn't feel I had time to expand / research an article, I would think a 'prod' would be the responsible thing, no? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)ps. I see you also got a bit caught up in the tony block wiki bun fight.... you seem to be keeping a cool head, which is great - lets hope it all calms down asap...
- I like to keep articles, except when they are so riddled with violations of a persons privacy that the text/history should not be visible, except to admins. Deleting the work of my peers is a last resort. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you in spirit - but the possible consequences bother me enough to nudge me in the direction of suggestion deletion where sources are completely absent - can we be sure, for example that "Mulholland vented his frustrations in a heated meeting with Holloway which ultimately left his career at the club in jeopardy" isn't both untrue and potentially damaging to a future career? - and on another level, would it matter if "Mulholland continued at Woolwich Youth as a centre forward, scoring 211 goals in 5 years." was just completely made up? massively exaggerated? horribly underestimated? - unfortunately when dealing with absolutely no sources, you can continue in this vein for pretty much the whole article! (maybe!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've addressed that, and added some sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you in spirit - but the possible consequences bother me enough to nudge me in the direction of suggestion deletion where sources are completely absent - can we be sure, for example that "Mulholland vented his frustrations in a heated meeting with Holloway which ultimately left his career at the club in jeopardy" isn't both untrue and potentially damaging to a future career? - and on another level, would it matter if "Mulholland continued at Woolwich Youth as a centre forward, scoring 211 goals in 5 years." was just completely made up? massively exaggerated? horribly underestimated? - unfortunately when dealing with absolutely no sources, you can continue in this vein for pretty much the whole article! (maybe!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like to keep articles, except when they are so riddled with violations of a persons privacy that the text/history should not be visible, except to admins. Deleting the work of my peers is a last resort. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well I would think a few sources would be a great start! - I rather suspect the painter Scott might even be a bit more notable? - Either ways, I'd probably start off by stubifying the article then - leaving only verifiable information from places like this - although the first result looks pretty good, the second is more par for the course unfortunately! - I'll bung a stub version in a subpage here when I get the chance to show you what I mean.... Do you think it's a poor approach to 'prod' such articles as you find them? - My feeling is that we're really far from coping at the moment, and, as I explain above, if I didn't feel I had time to expand / research an article, I would think a 'prod' would be the responsible thing, no? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)ps. I see you also got a bit caught up in the tony block wiki bun fight.... you seem to be keeping a cool head, which is great - lets hope it all calms down asap...
- I couldnt let lar have all the fun. That article is now on my watchlist; it will not be deleted. :P Now, how can we improve it? John Vandenberg (chat) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
<- I've still got some concerns, jay - but an immediate extra edit would be to reword the first sentence... I think the implication of the past tense there is rather sad! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- That is hard - his club mentions that they dont know where he is playing now, on a page titled "Where are they now". Of course that source isnt reliable, and it only states the negative, so we have no acceptable/formal confirmation that he isnt currently playing football somewhere. I have slightly tweaked the intro to remove the worst possible connotation. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- you've definitely cleared up the worst possible connotation, John! - Thanks! - I still have some concerns that we're stating that his career is over, when he's not yet 22.. we're probably right, but I'd hate for it to be in any way self-fulfilling.. how about 'who played professional football for QPR from x to x'? or somesuch?
- also - the fundamental function of this page is not only to make small improvements to some pages.. but to gather feedback about my suggestions, and to evaluate my indefinite arbcom restriction in this area.... thoughts most welcome on that stuff too! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, I've done that tweak. I've been acting as your BLP editor here, so you can identify the problems, thereby demonstrating your own wisdom, which has been working well. I'd like to also point out that the more I have looked at this article, the more I have felt that a prod wasnt such a bad idea at all - not one I agree with, but I can see your sense in it. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think I still believe the article should be 'prod'ed - and I'll sum it up in this way; It bothers me a bit that in clicking 'Save page' you or I (in this case you!) assume responsibility for all content on that page - I don't really mean legally (though that's certainly the theory), but ethically / morally etc. If the confidence factor (say out of 10) for parts of the article is less than 6 or 7 then I'd say we actually have a responsibility to remove that information.... now how sure are you that Scott has ever even been to Woolwich? :-) - the smile is important because these views aren't really settled for me yet - I'd love to hear any responses..... Privatemusings (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I personally feel that the risk is relatively low; even though there were some dubious aspects to the article, it was a pretty decent article written by an brand new user who was bold enough to do it under his own name: Thomas Gorrard-Smith (talk · contribs), who I assume knows the subject well, and is probably sane enough to realise that libel is a crime. I couldnt find any information linking him to Woolwich, but if it is true and he played well, there will be newspaper articles about it, or club newsletters, etc. Luckily for us, he also has email enabled, so I have emailed him to ask for more info. I probably wont point him to this discussion because it is a bit heavy on some other issues and I dont want to scare him too quickly. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think I still believe the article should be 'prod'ed - and I'll sum it up in this way; It bothers me a bit that in clicking 'Save page' you or I (in this case you!) assume responsibility for all content on that page - I don't really mean legally (though that's certainly the theory), but ethically / morally etc. If the confidence factor (say out of 10) for parts of the article is less than 6 or 7 then I'd say we actually have a responsibility to remove that information.... now how sure are you that Scott has ever even been to Woolwich? :-) - the smile is important because these views aren't really settled for me yet - I'd love to hear any responses..... Privatemusings (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, I've done that tweak. I've been acting as your BLP editor here, so you can identify the problems, thereby demonstrating your own wisdom, which has been working well. I'd like to also point out that the more I have looked at this article, the more I have felt that a prod wasnt such a bad idea at all - not one I agree with, but I can see your sense in it. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
< the cynic in me says that the info. may be too old to be chased up by now... but I hope I'm wrong! - given the tide of BLP problems that I feel we're facing - this little gem was 12th up in the Random button today.. first BLP - no way of knowing if the source is reliable, or if the article is appropriate.. there's actually a metric ton of these sort of articles which tells me that that's a whole other conversation that needs to be had - what level of sourcing is required for the statement that a woman starred in "Mrs Deep Throat"?! -- I wonder if prod=ing isn't actually the safest, most responsible option.
We don't really need to go round and round this one too much though - because I'm working on this page which will represent a bunch of pics suitable for eponymous articles, I hope! - this is actually an area I've always enjoyed contributing bits and bobs in - it'd be cool to get these guys into mainspace! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thin ice?
this and this edit could, I guess, be seen by some as contravening my restriction - I obviously hope they're acceptable edits - this being the sort of wiki-gnoming which I most enjoy, and would like to be able to do quietly! - feedback most welcome; Privatemusings (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- You most enjoy wiki-gnoming that contravenes your restriction? Hows about you stick to commenting on project talk pages (no need to mentioned your arbcom restriction all the time), and avoid the former diff as that one leads down a slippery slope. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- nah - the wiki gnoming I enjoy refers to taking and uploading the odd photo, I find it fun! - I don't like the scarlet letter at all, but wanted to be clear about not only what I was requesting, and why I wasn't just being a lazy so and so... (I mean, I am... but I don't want people knowing that!) but also I wanted to be open and honest and clear about my situation (there's a bit of 'covering my back' in there, I guess....) - the thought of leaving the David Williams thing in, and bringing it here, for example, annoyed me just enough to press edit - I've done that a few times with obvious vandalism, but p'raps this was a little too close to call..... point taken. Privatemusings (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- glad to see the wikiproject posting worked out good... I'll post there if I get some more photos in the coming weeks, and hope that this isn't seen as at all problematic. Privatemusings (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- nah - the wiki gnoming I enjoy refers to taking and uploading the odd photo, I find it fun! - I don't like the scarlet letter at all, but wanted to be clear about not only what I was requesting, and why I wasn't just being a lazy so and so... (I mean, I am... but I don't want people knowing that!) but also I wanted to be open and honest and clear about my situation (there's a bit of 'covering my back' in there, I guess....) - the thought of leaving the David Williams thing in, and bringing it here, for example, annoyed me just enough to press edit - I've done that a few times with obvious vandalism, but p'raps this was a little too close to call..... point taken. Privatemusings (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
another Random Button day
First page up - Michael_Brotherton.... another interesting one! - my thoughts / comments to follow - probably tomorrow.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- but could someone please consider removing the definitive article from the rather vainglorious infobox here in the meanwhile.... there is only one of 'em, but I don't think he deserves it! Privatemusings (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- done. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- that whole article is kinda appalling actually... but is quite a heated area to be getting involved in... because I'm here for advice etc., I might as well ask - should I suggest some changes there? Privatemusings (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- No. If it is a hot topic, then there are enough eyes on it already. Pick a different button, where we can play this little "smile for arbcom" game without interference. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- that whole article is kinda appalling actually... but is quite a heated area to be getting involved in... because I'm here for advice etc., I might as well ask - should I suggest some changes there? Privatemusings (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- done. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Michael Brotherton was one of my earlier articles (well, expanded from a stub); obviously if I was doing it now I would have added many more references. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- we could head off into a further discussion (like the Scott one above) here - particularly of interest is the morality / ethics of writing about living people whilst remaining (pseudo)anonymous... the wiki process is not very good at taking editorial responsibility for the overall slant / bias / impression of an article, and it is on that level, and a few specifics that I'd suggest some changes to this one.... plus I hate to sound like a broken record, but unsourced information of any kind really should be removed pending sources, I think... Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- here's an easy opening edit I'd suggest;
- "A right-wing Conservative," change to --->
- "Considered to be on the right wing of the Conservative party,"
- because 'right wing' tends to mean different things in different places, and it seems useful to me to be clear which political spectrum this term is applied to.... maybe more later! Privatemusings (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- here's an easy opening edit I'd suggest;
Now this is a cool one.....
Made me smile anyways... - /me waves at Lar if he's watching! Privatemusings (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)and yeah - there's no need to talk about this article here particularly, but it was first up on the random button, and I thought that was cool!
Peter Penny - much less cool....
This one was fifth up after the above... there's some pretty obvious vandalism that needs removing - and again, I feel that a 'prod' would be the best thing for it. I'm actually loathe to remove the vandalism myself without removing material that is very clearly utterly unsubstantiated.. I'm becoming more interested in the fact that when we hit 'Save' we're in some way taking responsiblity for veracity of the material.... I think we need a cultural shift fairly urgently, because articles like this simply aren't good enough. Privatemusings (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Now I know that no-one's reading! :-) There's still a bit of vandalism there..... Privatemusings (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- :P 86.44.28.197 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Offsite meta discussion
The mailing list is intended (I gather) to be the location for as much meta-discussion as possible concerning wikipedia, and is certainly an 'official' arm of the the project.... I'm currently on moderation over there (no reason has ever been stated, and I think I only posted about 10 times) - and find that that doesn't particularly encourage me to try and engage usefully. In recent times, when I have attempted to contribute to discussions, my posts have not appeared for quite a while (this one is 4 days and counting, there are others.....) - is this a chilling effect? - or a sign that the mod.s are on vacation, and nothing particularly to worry about? I dunno really - but I'd like to be off moderation. Privatemusings (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- the posts have made it though! hooray! .... interestingly, they bear the timestamps they had when I sent them, which makes it hard to determine at what point they were passed through moderation (certainly between my post above and now) - I don't really like the fact that the timestamp doesn't really reflect when they were actually posted - I wonder how the various email readers deal with this? and I wonder if it matters at all?! I don't know if I'm still on moderation or not - but hopefully not! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm off moderation :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)