User talk:AvatarMN/2007

Snark

Hi. The problem is that there are a million obscure things that are called Snark, that don't really have anything to do with the actual book. The place to put them is at Snark. Feel free to expand the entry you are talking about if you think there is more information. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

I agree with you. Tony Sidaway is a malicious editor intent on having everything his bizarre way no matter what. Are you aware of any methods by which administrators can be removed? JPBarrass 08:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. I'm a long-time Wikipedia reader, but new to editing. From what I've seen so far, I think we're screwed. He's been around for a long time, he's a part of a lot of projects, he's an admin, his personal talk page is even archived by some bot. He's got a history of people disputing him for the reasons we are, criticizing him on the grounds we are, and he's won. He's got a lot of friends, and a lot of prestige with the type who appear to control the way Wikipedia is run. It looks like people like people who think like us are impotent. This really sucks. -- AvatarMN 09:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax, I'm not an admin and I'm not malicious in any way. Anybody can use the bot I use for archiving--it's a public service provided by another user. See User_talk:Werdnabot. I'm not this huge all-powerful fellow you may imagine me to be. If you think I'm doing something wrong please tell me and I'll take it into consideration. If you're not satisfied, contact other editors and we'll see what they think. If I'm screwing up, I'll stop. --Tony Sidaway 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You've made it personal by stalking my edits and undoing most of my editing work on Wikipedia, targeting the edits because they were mine, and it looks like they don't even have to be on topics you know about and normally involve yourself. You apparently have a mindset that it's more valuble to spend probably most of your editing time undoing other peoples' work and arguing with them about it than creating, and allowing others to create and enjoy the benfits of Wikipedia editing and use, and then you call that quality. You appear to spend time on little else, and people like me can't compete with you in a revert war. Other editors have seen what's happening, we've been going at it long enough. The ones who have commented overwhelmingly agree with you. Because people like you who thrive on edit surpression, don't mind hurting people, and have nothing but free time take on these crusades, and people like me don't... and then we see that you've got us outclassed on time and willingness to edit wantonly, and wegive up on being editors. I can't source that, but it's how I truly feel, and what I truly believe, and what I've observed is enough for me to conclude that my editing days are through and you've won. -- AvatarMN 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at what you're doing, Tony. You go around thwarting peoples' edits on the grounds that they're "pointless", "useless", or "insignificant". In an article about an episode of a television drama! The episode's only point, usefulness, and significance is entertainment. And so people make entertaining notes, just to have you undo it.

Wikipedia seriously needs to address the issue of how certain rules that you're citing are antithetical to these types of articles, if people like you won't take the common sense route that the people who read these articles will always add trivia. Who's Wikipedia for, Tony? The people who visit, or the people who live there? Because the people who use these articles are genre fans, and we love trivia. The stuff you're removing is the stuff we like to read and share, and if we couldn't read and share that stuff here, we wouldn't use the articles. You've gotten yourself in to a battle that will never end.

There will always be people like me coming in, people who read these pages, find trivia that they enjoyed, and then want to give back. And then they discover that the hawks are waiting, and their edits are picked off. They feel hurt, not understanding why someone won't allow trivia in an article about a trivial subject. They wonder why someone would want to spend limitless time watching and picking off other peoples' contributions, the kinds of contributions that the reader can find all over the related articles. They feel they're being treated unfairly, and maybe they fight. Then they see that a lot of the hawks have a lot of time on their hands, and the willingness to spend it on removing edits, they've used their time to build up a Wikipedia presense that gets them authority, and the newbie and their allies don't have those things. So they quit... and the next new editor comes... and the hawks are waiting.

Seriously: who is Wikipedia for? The people who visit, or the people who live there? -- AvatarMN 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can't handle Wikipedia policy, a bright future still beckons on Tardis:

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Their content license is GFDL, fully compatible with ours, so you can take any written material from Wikipedia and import it there if tardis wants it. --Tony Sidaway 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You really don't have any interest in the issue of Wikipedia not allowing trivia on the trivial articles it allows? You don't think it's a problem that the existence of these trivial articles teases and confuses readers who may become editors, and then make edits that their experience as a reader gave them the impression are allowed? You like picking off edits and arguing about it, instead of using your time, position, and skills to talk about whether the rules need to be reviewed? You wouldn't like to see the rules being reviewed? (Thx for link and info, btw.) -- AvatarMN 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I must admit - I really hate Tony Sidaway also. He can't accept that he's wrong. I suggest we try an RfC.--Rambutan (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He's had a request for comment on him. Two, actually. And a request for arbitration. Doesn't seem to have made much of a difference. Tragic, huh? Sigh. I liked Wikipedia so much before I started editing and learned that hawks with infinite time on their hands run the place, and the rest of us have other things to do than fight for our edits. -- AvatarMN 07:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just try to keep the Doctor Who episode guides reasonably free of wild speculation. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that "drowning" thing, for instance. And the "female writers" thing, that's just pedantry based on a policy not meant to be enforced at a quantum level.--Rambutan (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Harmless, natural, constant, enjoyable wild speculation about a wildly speculative show. Well done. Even more impressive is the way you always ignore dialog about your history, or when other people argue with specific reference to rules. You're very skilled at treading the line between legitimate contributor and troll. -- AvatarMN 16:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Response regarding 42_(Doctor_Who)_Continuity

Unless people have valid grounds for adding the information, then it doesn't belong in the article. As has been pointed out to you several times already, if information has been similarly improperly included in other articles, then the right thing to do is to tackle that: bad practice in other places does not provide a basis by which it should be spread.

Let me offer you a further piece of advice: you're not going to change the fundamental rules by which Wikipedia operates by going on like this. Your time would be better spent reading up on those policies and guidelines already in place, and then applying them to your participation in Wikipedia. Mark H Wilkinson 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to argue my grounds for adding the information, and it hasn't been addressed beyond people crowing allegations that it's original research or not verifiable. And even that it's rubbish and trivial/irrelevent/unimportant, as if anything about a TV episode isn't.

I'll admit that I didn't go into editing having read much of the rules and guidelines, I just went in and made the sort of contributions that I consistently saw in the other articles on Doctor Who epsiodes. Since then I have been reading up on the rules and guidelines, and I've learned that I was following Wikipedia:Common_sense by doing so. I've found much support for my positions in the guidelines. Like Wikipedia:Consensus, which I believe you and Tony and the rest of the hawks hold much contempt for. This guideline supports the arguments I've made about the facts that people are constantly making these edits, that these articles are by fans and fans love trivia, and that it's folly and destructive for an editor to spend most of their time watching for and removing edits that different people keep putting into all the like articles. And then there's Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules, the bane of a hawk's existence and the final pilar, ironically! This guideline says that the consensus of all the trivia-adding editors and the common sense acceptance of the fact that genre fans love triva means that it would improve Wikipedia to allow trivia in articles on trivial subjects, and acceptance of the fact that trivia requires original research and unverifiability, so we could quit the soul-sucking drain of all these edit wars and huge arguments in talk articles.

I ask again; is Wikipedia for the visitors, or the people who live there? I say that the application of bona fide Wikipedia guidelines on common sense, consensus, and ignore all rules leads us to the landslide conclusion that the readers of articles like the ones on Doctor Who epsiodes would consider them improved if these articles about entertainment were entertaining. -- AvatarMN 08:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Three things:

• Wikipedia:Consensus says that "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." In short: having a whole bunch of people in favour of including certain content is not enough in itself.

• Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." If I thought you were improving something whose sole aim is to be an encyclopedia by increasing its trivia content to make it more "entertaining", then I'd back your position; I don't, so I can't. Moreover, simply asserting that a television-related article is of necessity trivial, and that editing policies therefore don't matter as much when adding content, doesn't cut it. The premise is flawed and its implication decidedly dubious.

• Wikipedia:Common_sense says that "Invoking the principle of "ignore all rules" on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all." Whereas you've been, for want of a better phrase, kicking up a great big fuss about an edit of yours that didn't survive (and for which, by the way, there was no noticable consensus in favour) and alerting people to further abuses of community-wide policies (some of which are now being dealt with). Forgive me if I'm not convinced of the commonality of your sense in this matter.

There, I think that's me done on this one, because, quite honestly, I'm uncertain as to how fruitful it is to go over the same ground with you yet again. Mark H Wilkinson 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The hawk's every argument has been supported by being a rules hawk, while I've supported my positions with arguments of nature and practicality. Now that I'm playing it your way and specifically citing rules I believe have supported my practical arguments all along, of course you don't like where you see this argument is going.

Quickly; I am not and never have been basing my arguments in favor of one edit of mine that didn't survive (I'll admit the consensus on that specific one has not been in evidence), but in favor of trivia contributions in general, as the arguements against that specific edit matches the arguements against countless others like it. I don't hang arguements for the commonality of my sense on that edit.

Consensus hasn't acted "very quickly" on the subject of trivia. Having always had a bunch of people in favor of certain content, the numbers of them being varied and perpetual (as articles and edit histories document), is enough in itself. These articles wouldn't even exist in an encyclopedia if consensus hadn't allowed for a certain amount of frivolity when it comes to them. If you don't agree that an article on a TV show is of necessity trivial, you have no perspective on life, and are in clear violation of common sense. If you don't think that entertainment has a value in the articles about entertainment, and that trivia has a value in trivial articles, you are in clear violation of common sense and consensus. As you are if you think that these articles could exist and thrive without letting fans be fans, and that it's a valuble and appreciated improvement of Wikipedia to launch an endless campaign against the constant influx of fans who become casual editors to make these types of contributions. You think it doesn't violate consensus and common sense to deny the perpetuity and naturalness of these sort of edits? You think the fans are ever going to change their nature? You really enjoy stationing yourself at the gate, picking them off, and arguing? You really think that improves Wikipedia? Then there's a Wikimedia Foundation-related essay that may apply. [1] -- AvatarMN 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

hey willpower

Yep, I can solve both of your problems, LOL. I'll fix the sort thing now, and the reference thing tomorrow. ;) TAnthony 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Refs all fixed, it does look a lot better that way. Thanks for writing the article. TAnthony 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

4400 Center

You wrote in an edit comment, "It drives me nuts when people call knowing something when you see it 'original research', but surely citing the characters in the show is okay?".

Absolutely. Your edit that some characters in the show call it a cult is fine. I don't remember anyone in the show calling it "like Scientology" though, so a source is needed. I agree, based on my limited knowledge, that the buying-your-way-up through the levels sounds like Scientology, and we could speculate that Scientology is what Behr based the 4400 Center on, but it's only speculation without citation. It could conceivably be compared instead to to Amway, DS-MAX, or the International Churches of Christ. Travisl 14:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Behr based it on Scientology, I said it resembled Scientology. Something everyone who knows about Scientology and watches The 4400 can't help noticing without being told; it's plain to see. I just get frustrated when I see Wikipedia:Use common sense lose to Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:POV every time. And anyway, you cut both the Scientology mention and the cult reference cited by characters in the show. -- AvatarMN 02:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

If you look at the manual for spelling here[[2]] you'll see that Australian spellings are acceptable. The world doesn't have to comply with America's rules. A gx7 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the spelling of misogyny. Another thing I did wrong was assume that you considered American spelling the only acceptable form; that was an unfair generalisation that I shouldn't have made. A gx7 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm against female exploitation because I have three sisters and used to know someone who a cared a lot about who was often taken advantage of. I'm just trying to bring what I consider issues of injustice to light, something I'm sure everyone tries to do in different ways with their editting. I blanked my talk page because nothing on there was of any use to me any more, and added that line to my user page because confusing nonsense appeals to my sense of humour. A gx7 11:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Great white shark

There is no contradiction between the text and the image caption. From the article:

Some researchers questioned the reliability of both measurements, noting they were much larger than any other accurately-reported Great White Shark. The New Brunswick shark may have been a misidentified basking shark, as both sharks have similar body shapes. The question of the Port Fairy shark was settled in the 1970s, when J.E. Reynolds examined the shark's jaws and "found that the Port Fairy shark was of the order of 5 m (17 feet) in length and suggested that a mistake had been made in the original record, in 1870, of the shark's length.

Ellis and McCosker write that "the largest White Sharks accurately measured range between 19 and 21 ft [about 5.8 to 6.4 m], and there are some questionable 23-footers [about 7 m] in the popular — but not the scientific — literature". Furthermore, they add that "these giants seem to disappear when a responsible observer approaches with a tape measure."

Regards, Mgiganteus1 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomo

The problem with the image is it has a noncommercial Creative Commons license, which is not enough for use here. -- But|seriously|folks  22:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the complexity of Wikipedia's image policies is a known problem. But that's what the Wikimedia Foundation has mandated, so we have to comply. Sorry you are having a bad experience. -- But|seriously|folks  23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

You said you were "out", so I didn't think you'd have a problem with that. Anyway, images can only be used here if others can take them and use them for profit, etc. Just because an image is used promotionally by its owner does not mean that the owner permits it to be used for profit, so it can't be used as a free image on Wikipedia. Non-free use (a/k/a "fair use") might be an option, but Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are very strict. If an image might be replaced by a free one, it can't be used here. So non-free images of living people and existing bands can rarely be used on Wikipedia. -- But|seriously|folks  00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "backtalking". I clicked on your contribs to check the image I had deleted and noticed that you had uploaded an Imperial Teen image. I happen to know that they're active right now, so I took a look at that as well. We get hundreds of problem images uploaded every day. Some are not detected until years later. The fact that one hangs around for a week is meaningless. The album covers you uploaded are acceptable (as long as they are used properly). The band photos are not allowed. I don't make the rules; I just enforce them. But they are important rules, as they reduce Wikipedia's potential liability and set it apart from litigation magnets like Youtube. -- But|seriously|folks  00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not very civil. I take my job as an admin seriously. Are you suggesting I should take more pleasure in uploading other people's images that are not allowed here? Anybody could do that. Why don't you go to a show or an in-store and take your own pictures? That would be helpful. -- But|seriously|folks  01:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You ask some very good questions. Part of the reason it's so complicated is the Foundation is letting us have our cake ("free" content encyclopedia) and eat it too (non-free images allowed sometimes). The result is a policy that you almost need to be a lawyer to understand. Unfortunately, if there was a "bright line" test for what was allowed, it would either mean more non-free images (impairing the free content goal) or no non-free images (which most people would not like). Yes, the upload screens are also inadequate. A lot of these issues are being discussed on the relevant policy talk pages, and the situation is slowly improving, but we have a long way to go. The easiest way to avoid the problem is to stick to your own images, or images that are old enough to be in the public domain. Album covers are also good, but you have to make sure they are used properly and have the right copyright tag and use rationale, which gets a little complicated. -- But|seriously|folks  01:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had answered that question. Part of being an admin is cleaning up things that don't conform to policy. I happen to have a good handle on the image policies, so I am comfortable cleaning up in that area. As far as the "nutshell" issue, here are some resources:

Wikipedia:Image use policy

Wikipedia:Uploading images

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

User:R. Baley/Acquire a free image

And here is the answer to the Creative Commons issue:

These are allowed

These are no good

For CC licenses, basically the ones that include noncommercial and no derivatives are no good.

Hope that helps! -- But|seriously|folks  02:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Ninjas"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ninja#.22Category:Ninjas.22.5B1.5D --HanzoHattori 08:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

3rd Rock from the Sun

There is a discussion to merge the individual episode articles into one, and since I saw that you are an editor, I would appreciate you giving your input into the discussion here. If you have any questions, please leave on my talk page. Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Seasick.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Seasick.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Man's best friend

*shrug* Album articles for even lesser known bands do sprout up quite easily. The point about not pipe-linking to Wild Dogs is to make it absolutely clear to which article the reader will be navigating to; including a separate bluelink is part of this deal. As for the exact form of redlink, I've found that both formats are used (year or artist/band). I can't say I have a preference for either; I just chose the first one I thought of. --Turnipface 10:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Doherty

On the contrary, i think that until you have found a source that says that he only had sex with men you should stop adding the word. Male prostitution goes both ways, i'm pretty sure that he didn't say no when a woman wanted to hire him. I asked a friend that has the book but he doesn't remember if it said that he only did men, he'll let me know in a while. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

whaaa? are you accusing me of homophobia? dude, you couldn't be more far off. I use Twinkle and the rollback/rollback vandalism buttons are pretty close, sometimes i don't really pay attention to which button i use. Sorry about that, you shouldn't go around making accusations though. And again, "gay" = only men, nothing = both ways (see Male prostitution). If you really, really want to add the word gay, then rewrite the sentence, maybe something like "...worked as a drug dealer and a prostitute, engaging in both homosexual and heterosexual activity"... I don't know, this sounds wierd. I could be wrong, take this to the article's talk page so we can have some other opinions. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)