User talk:Avanu
Welcome to my Talk page.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
| SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. | |
|---|---|
|
|
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
| |||
Trayvon's suspension
Hi - I agree with your point and I get why some people might think that even-handed unfairness is fair, but that's exactly why I think we need to stay away from it unless there is something real, not people positing what might have happened based on unrelated facts and their own imaginations. Really there's no more reason to think that Trayvon would have perceived the unidentified man following and verbally accosting him at night as an authority figure, than as a threat to him - a mugger or someone "up to no good". Zimmerman wasn't after all, in uniform, and we have no reason to think he lied and said he was a police officer - so why would he necessarily be perceived by Trayvon as an authority figure? We'll never know the truth, and we'll just have to hope that the decision of what happened is taken out of the unilateral hands of the police and put into the hands of the marginally more objective justice system. And good luck in seating a jury. Cheers - always good to run into you and your clear thinking. Tvoz/talk 08:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Any intention to open up discussion on why you are removing well-sourced information from a non-BLP bio? I will appreciate your prompt response, on the talk page, for your actions here, which a unenlightened observer could interpret as being contrary to the directive to "explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner". Of course, that's only one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Cheers :) Nevard (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is unnecessary and irrelevant to the article, and only serves to tarnish the subject. There are many irrelevant details that people feel are necessary and in the proper context they *might* have a place in the article. I'll remind you: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives...."
- You want to include information about the suspension, then make it relevant. Include information about WHY the media or others felt the need to dig this up and include it. We have no information about Trayvon Martin's behavior that night and this information has zero clear connection with his behavior on that night. Find a reliable source for a connection that is in line what what FACTS we have about that night and it deserves to be included. Fail to do that, and it is merely titillating gossip. -- Avanu (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- No. I don't. It's mentioned in numerous reliable sources. Read Wikipedia policy much? Nevard (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- And bra.. nice quote from the Biography of Living Persons policy (cheers for not linking to it). Do you have some information indicating that Mr. Martin is not actually dead? Nevard (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that it is a quote from BLP does not diminish the point. We're not a gossip rag. And since it seems to bear repeating, there are three pillars for a "reliable source", and sadly people have to keep repeating this all the time because of people who see "BIG NAME NEWS" and think that's sufficient.
- The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
- Please address the points I made in my earlier post that addressed your concerns. You cannot simply include gossipy information because a supposedly reliable source quotes it. It must also adhere to the NPOV policy and have a rationale for being included. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Um. No. Reliable sources don't mention that people have said that Martin was suspended three times. They document that this was the case. Given that you seem to be advocating that the inclusion of information from reliable sources be determined on the outcome of some sort of subjective critical reading- more critical reading than required by the actual policy on reliable sources- how about some critical reading of the BLP policy? I have some vague memory that it applies to Living Persons. Pretty sure that diminishes a point- and it's not my point. Nevard (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are so hung up on the BLP policy as being the crux of my debate here. The quote I mention is from one of Wikipedia's most important policies, which is often misunderstood -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We're not here to promote scandal or advocate for one side or the other. The Trayvon article has two facets. The actual event on the night of the shooting, and then the media-driven, contentious debate over race and vigilantism. Where does the suspension fit into that? Clearly the second part, unless you can provide some rationale for its relevance to the actual event. Please try to look past BLP and see the various policies that fit here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sweet as bro. Could you link to a source for this quote? Because I'm having a lot of difficulty finding it on WP:NOT. I'm really pretty sure that that guideline, intended to address various dubious arguments put forth by people playing silly buggers around the edges of policy, doesn't endorse the censorship of facts mentioned in numerous reliable sources because It Just Feels Like Something The Daily Mail Would Say. But then, I could be wrong.. you did start your WP account before me. I may not have heard of the Wikipedia:MustAlwaysTakeTheSameToneTheGuardianWould policy. Nevard (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- This debate is getting tiresome. Please explain the relevance of the information to the article. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain- on the article talk page, as I requested- why you want to suppress information mentioned in oh, only a few thousand reliable sources. You can link all the Wikipedia policies you like which have any actual relevance there too. Cheers :) Nevard (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll quote, but I expect this discussion to be ended here at this point. There is an article talk page for a reason, and there are certainly other editors who might wish to weigh in on this besides the two of us. WP:NPOV (This is a Pillar of Wikipedia, not just a policy), WP:ATTACK (This is a Wikipedia policy), WP:NOT (Also a policy), WP:CON (Is there general consensus for the inclusion of this material in the manner that it was included within the article?). I'm fairly certain I can find more, but really what's the point? -- Avanu (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain- on the article talk page, as I requested- why you want to suppress information mentioned in oh, only a few thousand reliable sources. You can link all the Wikipedia policies you like which have any actual relevance there too. Cheers :) Nevard (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- This debate is getting tiresome. Please explain the relevance of the information to the article. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sweet as bro. Could you link to a source for this quote? Because I'm having a lot of difficulty finding it on WP:NOT. I'm really pretty sure that that guideline, intended to address various dubious arguments put forth by people playing silly buggers around the edges of policy, doesn't endorse the censorship of facts mentioned in numerous reliable sources because It Just Feels Like Something The Daily Mail Would Say. But then, I could be wrong.. you did start your WP account before me. I may not have heard of the Wikipedia:MustAlwaysTakeTheSameToneTheGuardianWould policy. Nevard (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you are so hung up on the BLP policy as being the crux of my debate here. The quote I mention is from one of Wikipedia's most important policies, which is often misunderstood -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We're not here to promote scandal or advocate for one side or the other. The Trayvon article has two facets. The actual event on the night of the shooting, and then the media-driven, contentious debate over race and vigilantism. Where does the suspension fit into that? Clearly the second part, unless you can provide some rationale for its relevance to the actual event. Please try to look past BLP and see the various policies that fit here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Um. No. Reliable sources don't mention that people have said that Martin was suspended three times. They document that this was the case. Given that you seem to be advocating that the inclusion of information from reliable sources be determined on the outcome of some sort of subjective critical reading- more critical reading than required by the actual policy on reliable sources- how about some critical reading of the BLP policy? I have some vague memory that it applies to Living Persons. Pretty sure that diminishes a point- and it's not my point. Nevard (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that it is a quote from BLP does not diminish the point. We're not a gossip rag. And since it seems to bear repeating, there are three pillars for a "reliable source", and sadly people have to keep repeating this all the time because of people who see "BIG NAME NEWS" and think that's sufficient.
- I decided to address your fixation on the WP:BLP policy, which actually does apply here as well, given the statement "material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy". The characterization of Trayvon Martin, whether good or bad, most definitely has implications for his living relatives. They are at the center of the 2nd aspect of this story, if you will reference my response above, and while the media has no problem apologizing later for its awful behavior, see articles like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/01/bill-kristol-trayvon-martin-media-coverage_n_1394815.html , one of Wikipedia's goals is to be better than that. If you cannot see this, then it might be good to examine your role as an editor. I'm not interested in suppressing relevant or factual information, but it must have a legitimate place in the article. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- So why the failure to attempt to achieve any sort of consensus on the talk page, then? And uh, why exactly are you attempting to suppress facts mentioned in numerous reliable sources? Nevard (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, let's suppose we have a list of every curse word uttered by either of them, should we include that? Or maybe we know how many times they have each yelled at their girlfriends? Maybe we should include any of every bad deed that they've every done simply because we have numerous reliable sources for it? We are here to build a good article reflecting the events of that night, not a total picture of the person. In journalism, this is considered responsible, in law, it is a requirement. But yet here I am repeatedly asking you to show the RELEVANCE of these facts, and you simply say "We have the facts, therefore we must print them". Just because you know the cost of his skittles, or the nutritional information of those, doesn't mean it goes in the article. It needs to have more than just a casual connection to this event, but a causal connection to it. We could almost certainly paint either of them as monsters or as saints by selectively using facts from their lives before that day. But it doesn't matter unless we can show cause. Exercising judgement and thoughtfulness in what is included and excluded is part of being a responsible editor here, and the policies and guidelines that were created are built on this kind of foundation. I'll give you a few quotes from the WP:NOT policy again in closing.
- "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful."
- "editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view"
- "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"
- Cheers. -- Avanu (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... soooo the fact that numerous reliable sources have mentioned Mr. Martin's recidivism doesn't do it for you. How... interesting. Nevard (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- You'll find a similar discussion taking place at Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Lack_of_discussion_of_Martin_.2F_Zimmerman.27s_history. They're discussing why you might choose not to include details that are not relevant, and it covers much of the same ground that you have questioned me about. -- Avanu (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm... soooo the fact that numerous reliable sources have mentioned Mr. Martin's recidivism doesn't do it for you. How... interesting. Nevard (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, let's suppose we have a list of every curse word uttered by either of them, should we include that? Or maybe we know how many times they have each yelled at their girlfriends? Maybe we should include any of every bad deed that they've every done simply because we have numerous reliable sources for it? We are here to build a good article reflecting the events of that night, not a total picture of the person. In journalism, this is considered responsible, in law, it is a requirement. But yet here I am repeatedly asking you to show the RELEVANCE of these facts, and you simply say "We have the facts, therefore we must print them". Just because you know the cost of his skittles, or the nutritional information of those, doesn't mean it goes in the article. It needs to have more than just a casual connection to this event, but a causal connection to it. We could almost certainly paint either of them as monsters or as saints by selectively using facts from their lives before that day. But it doesn't matter unless we can show cause. Exercising judgement and thoughtfulness in what is included and excluded is part of being a responsible editor here, and the policies and guidelines that were created are built on this kind of foundation. I'll give you a few quotes from the WP:NOT policy again in closing.
- So why the failure to attempt to achieve any sort of consensus on the talk page, then? And uh, why exactly are you attempting to suppress facts mentioned in numerous reliable sources? Nevard (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I decided to address your fixation on the WP:BLP policy, which actually does apply here as well, given the statement "material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, is covered by this policy". The characterization of Trayvon Martin, whether good or bad, most definitely has implications for his living relatives. They are at the center of the 2nd aspect of this story, if you will reference my response above, and while the media has no problem apologizing later for its awful behavior, see articles like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/01/bill-kristol-trayvon-martin-media-coverage_n_1394815.html , one of Wikipedia's goals is to be better than that. If you cannot see this, then it might be good to examine your role as an editor. I'm not interested in suppressing relevant or factual information, but it must have a legitimate place in the article. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no fixation on BLP. You quote BLP at length, while claiming to be referring to other policy matters. We aren't talking about things which actually impact on his relatives- even their ambulance chasers have admitted that Mr. Martin was suspended several times, while denying that his failure to comply with the highly stringent rules of a 21st century lazy teenager chillout system might have anything to do with the fact that he chose to throw down on a guy who happened to be carrying a concealed pistol. Nevard (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I initially didn't quote anything but a tiny piece talking about editorial restraint. -- Avanu (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no fixation on BLP. You quote BLP at length, while claiming to be referring to other policy matters. We aren't talking about things which actually impact on his relatives- even their ambulance chasers have admitted that Mr. Martin was suspended several times, while denying that his failure to comply with the highly stringent rules of a 21st century lazy teenager chillout system might have anything to do with the fact that he chose to throw down on a guy who happened to be carrying a concealed pistol. Nevard (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Please take a look
Hi. Please take a look at the Shooting of Trayvon Martin talk page and the latest comment from "Doc of Soc": "IMO it has always been reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was bound and determined to get himself a "F'ing Coon". Total Bias acknowledged. I feel better now. Back to trying to be fair and balanced. Namaste — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)" Can a comment like that be made and allowed to stay on an article's talk page? Aren't the rules for biographies of living persons the same on the talk pages for biographies of living persons? I still can't believe he said what he did and no one else has done anything about it. Thank you for your help. Rollo V. Tomasi (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Avanu. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Really?
You're using BLPN to engage in attacks on living people? What the hell... Guettarda (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is a well-sourced comment, grounded in reality. Please take a look at Jon Stewart skewering him on the Daily Show for his immature antics. You can consider it an attack if you like, but this man doesn't behave in a manner worthy of being a newscaster. I believe our policies here should respect fairness and honesty in the article space, but there is no need to bring a topic like that one to the BLPN forum if the person in question has a habit of being exactly like the article suggests. That doesn't mean it deserves to be included in his public article, but the idea that he's not a biased and frankly hateful person is inescapable. -- Avanu (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: Your speech.
I am not attacking you, but simply informing you that the policies are still relevant even on the talk page. Your speech on your personal beliefs for racism causing unfair jailing is not on topic and its takes a superior tone that is unconstructive and combative citing racebaiting lines and a demeaning tone. Calling other editors names is attacking though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- You mean saying don't be a jerk? Its impolite, you are right, but when I simply wanted to express some comraderie with a fellow editor and someone tosses out a rule essentially saying shut up, its not polite either. I've spoken to them and consider the matter ended with them, but I think we need to allow for people to take a moment to be more than just robotic editors here. Generally I feel that I've done a lot to keep discussion positive and on-topic, and I'll try and use even softer language to decribe behavior that I might consider impolite, but I do hope no one loses sleep over it being implied that they're a jerk. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I won't lose sleep over it. : ) My sole purpose in posting the reminder(s) was to promote a good editing environment for everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your support - Just wanted you to know that part of the mystery was solved and I didn't imagine it
Taken from User Jimbo Wales page Mugginsx (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I can explain some of it. Someone tagged Talk:William Mullins for deletion as a testpage [1]. Mugginsx created the page with only a full stop on it (by accident I suppose). RHaworth removed the speedy. Incidentally, Mugginsx, you moved Tilley from Edward Tilley, so RHaworth was only reverting your BOLD but unnecessary move. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Elen. I am not quite sure what you mean about Edward - both names had the titles. It shows that way still on my "favorites bar" but anyway doesn't matter now but thanks for your astute observation.Mugginsx (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
About the attacks on me.
Rather then posts all the diffs, this pretty much speaks for itself. [2] Bias one way and now the other right? I've done quite a bit to keep Martin's image proper in relation to the incident and not filled with smear and other issues and took some heavy fire for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have tended to see that you're actually a pretty neutral editor on this, so I'm not sure what that other guy is going on about. -- Avanu (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, it means a lot to me to know that someone doesn't think I am aggressively pushing a POV. While little more information on Martin's end has come up, I still try to be neutral and cite both sides. Its like how I was attacked for invoking the policies into my arguments. If it goes to DR or something I have plenty of evidence to support my neutrality and their attacks. Falls under WP:ROPE actually. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have tended to see that you're actually a pretty neutral editor on this, so I'm not sure what that other guy is going on about. -- Avanu (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Avanu. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This concerns TheDarkLordSeth.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Photographer's Barnstar |
| Thanks very much for the Zimmerman image. Good solution to a longstanding issue :) . HectorMoffet (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
TheDarkLordSeth removed your comment.
I am addressing this to you because he removed your post. Per WP:TPO Deleting of another editors comments is wrong, especially given the nature of TheDarkLordSeth's actions recently. Here is the diff. Under WP:RTF , "Editing and deleting the text completely. Except for non-contentious fixes, this should only be done by the editor who wrote the material or by a sysop or bureaucrat with legitimate cause." TheDarkLordSeth has violated this and given previous note I am letting you know because it pertains to your posts. [3] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think that was actually an accident. I kept seeing that happen yesterday with posts disappearing. -- Avanu (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Peeping George
Hi, Avanu! Thank you for adding the latest mug of George Z. One quibble I have: it looks like he's standing on his tiptoes peeping in a window. In other words, his head isn't centered in the original photo (not your fault!). Can you take a little gray off the top or add some space at the bottom so his face is even between the top and bottom of the frame? Thanks, man. --Kenatipo speak! 16:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
BLP?
Please explain what discussion you are referring to in this edit [4]. Maybe I am blind, but the only discussion I could find was [5] which was in favour of images. I have started a discussion on the talk page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please can you explain what you mean by [BLP] policy regarding images. There is no relevant material on the [BLP] page, so I am at a bit of a loss to understand you.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Right here: Wikipedia:BLP#Images "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." The entire article is really very close to an attack, and as such, adding a smiling image of Rick Santorum, as if he was happy to be a part of it, is not in line with a neutral tone and is somewhat disparaging. Please take a look at how the media recently portrayed Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in many news articles. http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon-martin-photo-media-george-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news-1.jpg This is an example of subtle bias in photography. -- Avanu (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The full text is "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy." Your interpretation is very creative. I understand that you dislike the article, but Wikipedia:BLP#Images is about different matters. Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with a frowning Santorum next to his anti-gay remarks?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is my contention, and others, that this is not an appropriate addition. It is a disparaging use of Santorum's photo. Make a strong consensus otherwise and it can be added, otherwise, it can't. Sorry if you feel this is awful, but you haven't yet given a reason why it should be added to that article other than saying he made some remarks back in 2003. -- Avanu (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is not mentioned in Wikipedia:BLP#Images. The image is used in context, to illustrate remarks made by Santorum. There is no image from 2003 available on wikicommons and he complained about the neologism in 2011. The article at the moment has only one photo - looks boring - and it is about a dispute between savage and santorum - it is good to see what they look like :) 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Having looked at the page at the time of the discussion mentioned above (May 2011), I see that a non-smiling image was included next to Santorum's 2011 comments. Would you be happy with that?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- We have no responsibility to make the page less boring. That is a nice option if possible, but we do have a responsibility to NPOV and BLP. -- Avanu (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Having looked at the page at the time of the discussion mentioned above (May 2011), I see that a non-smiling image was included next to Santorum's 2011 comments. Would you be happy with that?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is not mentioned in Wikipedia:BLP#Images. The image is used in context, to illustrate remarks made by Santorum. There is no image from 2003 available on wikicommons and he complained about the neologism in 2011. The article at the moment has only one photo - looks boring - and it is about a dispute between savage and santorum - it is good to see what they look like :) 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is my contention, and others, that this is not an appropriate addition. It is a disparaging use of Santorum's photo. Make a strong consensus otherwise and it can be added, otherwise, it can't. Sorry if you feel this is awful, but you haven't yet given a reason why it should be added to that article other than saying he made some remarks back in 2003. -- Avanu (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The full text is "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy." Your interpretation is very creative. I understand that you dislike the article, but Wikipedia:BLP#Images is about different matters. Do I correctly understand that you would be happy with a frowning Santorum next to his anti-gay remarks?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Right here: Wikipedia:BLP#Images "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." The entire article is really very close to an attack, and as such, adding a smiling image of Rick Santorum, as if he was happy to be a part of it, is not in line with a neutral tone and is somewhat disparaging. Please take a look at how the media recently portrayed Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman in many news articles. http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon-martin-photo-media-george-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news-1.jpg This is an example of subtle bias in photography. -- Avanu (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not spam
I do not like spam. Please revert yourself. Many thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what your point is, but who does like spam? -- Avanu (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- /me sips his Coke. Sorry if I was unclear. What I mean is, you have posted the same message to me twice. I do not want to reply to the same comment on two different pages. Please chose a page so we can continue the discussion at that page. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's why we don't go forum-shopping. Discussion on one page is more useful to keeping everyone informed. The IP editor chose to escalate the discussion to a second forum. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please revert yourself on one of those pages so we can have a centralized discussion. I do not want to reply to the same comment on two different pages. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Von Restoroff, I don't think I've ever seen a user graph quite like this. For any admin, any long-term contributor; anyone, really. Over 50% of your contributions are to WP space alone, which is somewhat... "unusual". This disproportionate edit ratio to that sector, considering your relatively short time here and small number of edits, does not compute. I'll be keeping an eye on you, if you don't mind. Cheers... Doc talk 05:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please do! Would you be so kind to do me the favor of becoming my first talkpage stalker? If so, please add my talkpage to your watchlist. Please hover your mouse over the image on my userpage, read the tooltip, then click the image and read the article. Von Restorff (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now that's a good article! Really, really good. I figured that you were no newbie! And I might have known you weren't the real von Restorff. Dang! Thanks for the "step-by-step" instructions, too. Doc talk 06:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Articles like that one are the reason I love Wikipedia. Von Restorff (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Now that's a good article! Really, really good. I figured that you were no newbie! And I might have known you weren't the real von Restorff. Dang! Thanks for the "step-by-step" instructions, too. Doc talk 06:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe he just likes to edit a lot? -- Avanu (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please do! Would you be so kind to do me the favor of becoming my first talkpage stalker? If so, please add my talkpage to your watchlist. Please hover your mouse over the image on my userpage, read the tooltip, then click the image and read the article. Von Restorff (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe. We all do, or we probably wouldn't be here. Doc talk 06:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. But to return back to the topic at hand, Avanu, would you be so kind to remove one of the two messages you copypasted? I do not want to reply to the same comment on two different pages. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think he has any obligation to do that at all, as it doesn't look like WP:Forum shopping, and they are both talk pages that you both contribute to.
They do not appear to be identical copy-pasted questions when you look at them: so you should have no problem answering both of them, should you choose to.You can, of course, ignore both of the questions, but he doesn't have to remove one, or either of them. If you ask him really, really nicely... he is still not required to do that. Doc talk 06:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)- Asking nicely usually produces great results. If Avanu refuses I can explain I prefer to answer on one page and put a link on the other page. Von Restorff (talk) 06:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- No argument here. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- An interesting development on the article and BLP noticeboard! I think this is possibly something we can all agree on. What do you guys think? Von Restorff (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- You don't want to know what I think, trust me. Doc talk 07:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no reason not to trust you. Maybe you are right. On the other hand, you make me curious. I suppose I just have to learn to accept I am permanently curious. Von Restorff (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC) p.s. @Avanu: sorry for all the "new message"-banners.
- (talk page stalker) Von Restoroff, I don't think I've ever seen a user graph quite like this. For any admin, any long-term contributor; anyone, really. Over 50% of your contributions are to WP space alone, which is somewhat... "unusual". This disproportionate edit ratio to that sector, considering your relatively short time here and small number of edits, does not compute. I'll be keeping an eye on you, if you don't mind. Cheers... Doc talk 05:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please revert yourself on one of those pages so we can have a centralized discussion. I do not want to reply to the same comment on two different pages. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's why we don't go forum-shopping. Discussion on one page is more useful to keeping everyone informed. The IP editor chose to escalate the discussion to a second forum. -- Avanu (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- /me sips his Coke. Sorry if I was unclear. What I mean is, you have posted the same message to me twice. I do not want to reply to the same comment on two different pages. Please chose a page so we can continue the discussion at that page. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Dogs
I changed the Seamus talk page to remove your words from there, replaced with a link - and so noted here. You're welcome to revert me or do whatever you like with it, but I think it was out of line for the IP to post your comment from one page to another without your agreement. Cheers Tvoz/talk 18:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Seamus deletion
Thank you for notifying everyone that the proposed grounds for deleting the Seamus article are WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTADVOCACY, rather than WP:NOTABILITY. However, having read WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTADVOCACY, I am not convinced that the Seamus article fails either standard. I responded your your comments on the AfD page, but from a strict Wikipedia definition, gossip is material that cannot be verified to a reliable source or invades the privacy of a person, and advocacy means that material is written in a non-neutral manner with the purpose of promoting an agenda. I just don't see the Seamus article as currently written as fitting either description. If you can find something in the article which makes the article non-neutral, libellous, or a privacy violation, please notify me. Debbie W. 04:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure where you get that definition of WP:GOSSIP. I don't see that listed under the WP:SOAP section where GOSSIP resides.
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda
- nor Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political,
- nor Opinion pieces
- Articles must be balanced to put entries ... in a reasonable perspective (this bit specifically mentions current events, but this event is 29 years old)
- nor for Scandal mongering,
- "Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person."
- The Seamus article, as well as the Obama eating dogs article, and any of this ilk, exist to shine a light on a long ago issue in a way that promotes the very things that Wikipedia speaks against in the snippets above. Bill Clinton smoked marijuana at some point... does it deserve a standalone article? Herman Cain made unwanted advances with some women at work. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was alleged by Anita Hill to have sexually harassed her. Look at these things and see what has its own standalone article and what doesn't. Bill Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky has a separate article: Sexual misconduct allegations against Bill Clinton, but the marijuana isn't even mentioned in his biographical article. Seamus, while an emotional and interesting story, does NOT rise to the level of being independently notable. It is notable because of its association with Mitt Romney, but spinning it out into its own article is the non-neutral act that makes it into ADVOCACY or GOSSIP. Leaving it as a part of the Mitt Romney article would be appropriate as a footnote in his rise to candidate for president, but beyond that, it is not THAT noteworthy. You may personally feel that it is, but if you look at the overall picture and the various sorts of scandals in politics, this is practically nothing. How has it affected Mitt Romney's career? If you can say "not much", then that is about how much it deserves its own article. -- Avanu (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
more buttons
Since you ask for sysop, you may as well have most of the buttons that sysops have, so you now have WP:autopatrolled and WP:file mover. Please read the relevant policies & guidelines, use the tools cautiously to begin with, ask questions when you're not sure, yada yada. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's very thoughtful. Thank you for these opportunities. I'll use them with care. -- Avanu (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, I've decided not to post any explanatory statement to the AfD. The way I see it, so many people have already participated in the AfD, both on the "delete" and "merge" sides, that the consensus will be determined mostly based on what other people's recommendations are and why, not on my own recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Neil Swidey article about Seamus
Thank you for posting the Neil Swidey article about Seamus on the AfD page. It made for an interesting read. I added the following quote from the story to the Seamus (dog) article: Neil Swidley, the Boston Globe journalist who wrote the initial article about Romney's 1983 road trip, stated, "[Seamus] always struck me as a valuable window into how Romney operates. In everything the guy does, he functions on logic, not emotion." I think the Swidey story is valuable, and this was the most neutral quote that I could find in that story. Debbie W. 06:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool
[6]. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| Awarded to Avanu, for reminding admins to act according to policy – which means that users who have created an account named after their organisation and are editing productively and in good faith should not be blocked on sight, but should be contacted courteously first, advised of Wikipedia user name policy, and invited to rename their account, or identify themselves as the sole operators of the account in some other way, according to whatever policy is valid at the time. JN466 13:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
Username Policy
Thank you for working to clarify the username policy. As changes here may affect the work performed by administrators working to review UAA I have asked for their input so we may see some other suggestions on the policy talkpage. Regards, 7 23:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
MfD closure
I have reverted your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68. Please don't re-close it. I'm going to post a more thorough discussion below, but I wanted to start a discussion here before you start edit warring with me. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 00:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have posted a message on Jimbo's page where Bwilkins notifies the crowd that he's doing this nom. He knew there was an RfC, in addition Ed17 placed the page under protection, which Bwilkins had to override in order to place his MfD tag. This is one admin overriding another, which I believe is technically defined as wheel warring. It is frivolous and vexatious use of time and resources to conduct an RfC seeking community consensus for this and then to have a second separate discussion on the same points and issues that may reach a different local consensus. Bwilkins knows better and should not be creating a situation like this. -- Avanu (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ok, first of all, you're not an admin. Per WP:NAC, non-admins are particularly discouraged from closing anything other than AfD's and RfD's, and discouraged from closing potentially controversial XfD's. Second of all, you clearly have a dog in this fight; you are not neutral on this topic. The current discussion at WT:UP shows this clearly. If you want to influence the discussion at the MfD, fine, but do it by voting. The MfD and the RfC are related, yes, but they are parallel discussions that are not mutually exclusive. They can happen simultaneously. The deletion of Cla68's user page does not depend on the result at the RfC, since his user page is already clearly in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING, a policy. The RfC is simply to bring the guideline in line with the policy. Also, the MfD nomination is not pointy in the slightest, it is clearly a serious nomination as evidenced by the decent amount of support it is currently getting. Please vote in the MfD, but don't disrupt it any further by closing it. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 00:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wheel warring is one admin undoing the actions of another. An admin editing a page that is fully protected is not wheel warring. As I said above, the RfC is only an attempt to bring a guideline in line with a policy. The RfC does not have to be successful in order for Cla's advertisement to be removed, since it is already a violation of policy. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 00:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus is not static. Given the intensity of the debate at the RfC (this doesn't sound like a fully settled issue), it seems inappropriate (and a bit of forum shopping) to try and leapfrog past the debate there in order to create a new forum elsewhere. -- Avanu (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I cannot edit the User:Cla68 page. Therefore it requires admin powers to do so. An admin should not use tools in a way that overrides the intent of another admin, in this case, protecting the page from modification, especially if the goal of the change is self-serving. In that moment you have Editor:Bwilkins desiring a modification of the page, and Admin:Bwilkins should not have been the one to make the change. -- Avanu (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Scotty, WP:NOTADVERTISING does not prohibit using a userpage to publicize offers to improve Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- In response to what Cla68 just wrote, the decision on promotion is irrelevant to me for now, my concern is that one administrator protected the page, leaving the promotional content in place, and another user overrode that page protection, understandably with intent of placing the ostensibly neutral MfD tag, but because it was a self-serving action, he should have asked another admin to assist, preferrably Ed17. His MfD nom comes across as very pointy for the reasons I explained above, and splits time and resources. -- Avanu (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Scotty, WP:NOTADVERTISING does not prohibit using a userpage to publicize offers to improve Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wheel warring is one admin undoing the actions of another. An admin editing a page that is fully protected is not wheel warring. As I said above, the RfC is only an attempt to bring a guideline in line with a policy. The RfC does not have to be successful in order for Cla's advertisement to be removed, since it is already a violation of policy. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 00:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ok, first of all, you're not an admin. Per WP:NAC, non-admins are particularly discouraged from closing anything other than AfD's and RfD's, and discouraged from closing potentially controversial XfD's. Second of all, you clearly have a dog in this fight; you are not neutral on this topic. The current discussion at WT:UP shows this clearly. If you want to influence the discussion at the MfD, fine, but do it by voting. The MfD and the RfC are related, yes, but they are parallel discussions that are not mutually exclusive. They can happen simultaneously. The deletion of Cla68's user page does not depend on the result at the RfC, since his user page is already clearly in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING, a policy. The RfC is simply to bring the guideline in line with the policy. Also, the MfD nomination is not pointy in the slightest, it is clearly a serious nomination as evidenced by the decent amount of support it is currently getting. Please vote in the MfD, but don't disrupt it any further by closing it. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 00:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have posted a message on Jimbo's page where Bwilkins notifies the crowd that he's doing this nom. He knew there was an RfC, in addition Ed17 placed the page under protection, which Bwilkins had to override in order to place his MfD tag. This is one admin overriding another, which I believe is technically defined as wheel warring. It is frivolous and vexatious use of time and resources to conduct an RfC seeking community consensus for this and then to have a second separate discussion on the same points and issues that may reach a different local consensus. Bwilkins knows better and should not be creating a situation like this. -- Avanu (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, if you haven't seen it yet, I placed the request for closure on the AN/I, requesting that an uninvolved admin review and close if they believe it is warranted. Like you, I don't want to edit war over the closure, and its makes me chuckle just a little because its YOUR RfC I'm advocating that the discussion remain at. Life's funny at times. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Avanu, you're fully misunderstanding wheel warring. Read WP:WHEEL for more information. Again, editing a fully protected page is not wheel warring, nor was it inappropriate in this case. Bwilkins has done nothing wrong, and there is no reason to close the MfD early. Feel free to discuss it at ANI, I highly doubt you'll get a different result there. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 01:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Wheel warring isn't even the main point. It was just something I took note of when I went to close the MfD and checked the log and realize the protection was in place before the MfD tag went in. But my main point is related to your RfC. Doesn't overall community consensus generally trump local consensus? In other words, if the outcome of the RfC is a finely worded ALLOW, but the MfD says DISALLOW, which one do we listen to? ESPECIALLY because they are both debating the same catalyst here, which is the User:Cla68 page. -- Avanu (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Dirty Harry
I enjoyed the Dirty Harry reference at AN. That was good. Sad to say though, it is also true of a few admins. Kudos for bringing up the issue. Here's to hoping it will help the situation. Best regards. 64.40.54.81 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)