Jump to content

User talk:Betsythedevine/Archive 2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]
  • WP:EITW : Resources for editors.
  • WP:G : Wikipedia glossary



Luboš Motl

[edit]

As a person who has made significant contributions to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination). Robofish (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix the omission by tagging the image as fair use. betsythedevine (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Betsythedevine. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hey Betsythedevine, just letting you know that I responded to your question on my talk page. Cheers, Tim1357 talk 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Tim1357 talk 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OocitiesKatolskvision.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -- just for the record, this picture was a screenshot I took of a page at an ad-supported site, a screenshot showing many Google ads, as part of a discussion where some had claimed that the website in question did not have ads on it. That discussion is over, so I am quite content for Wikipedia to stop hosting the image, which is no longer needed by anybody. betsythedevine (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations hypotheses

[edit]

Here is my response to your accusations on the Jack Conway talk page, your words are in green.

Let's talk a little more about the recently outed paid intern for Rand Paul, Thomas Kubica, and his Daily Kos identity "Huey Long." On July 25, Huey Long joined Daily Kos and posted his first diary, referencing a video he had "found" on the internet -- said video was also posted on July 25 by an also-anonymous "demfromny" who exactly like "Huey Long" was a liberal fan of Daily Kos. Demfromny: "I've been reading a lot about Jack at Daily Kos, so I decided to research his positions." (wow, and not just research them but post a professionally edited video of every non-progressive quote available on tape, going back to 2002). Huey Long in his first diary on Kos: "I had been meaning to research Jack Conway, so I began today by searching for some of his videos on Youtube."

I agree that it was probably a Paul supporter, however it wasn't me. It could be Kubica, but both he and the Paul campaign are completely denying it.

And just one day, on July 26, later Wikipedia gets a new editor with an interest in adding material about Jack Conway.

Pure coincidence. I added one item about his foreign policy views upon signing up that day, then waited an entire month to add anything else significant, and my edit was based on material that had already been published before I first signed up July 26. In the meantime I edited a few instructional articles as I learned how to use Wikipedia and made newbie mistakes like forgetting to sign my name. Don't you think Rand's campaign would have someone who has used Wikipedia before to make these edits?

And this new editor is also a very professional video-editor who has by now posted 5 YouTube videos, every one of them attacking Jack Conway for not being progressive enough.

Thanks for the compliment on my video editing skills, but I don't know what you think is so professional about it. I made all my videos with amateur video editing software Windows Movie Maker, which I just recently learned how to use. I do have an attention to detail, but none of them are professionally done like you could say the "Is Jack Conway a Progressive?" video is. They are pretty much just straight clips of Conway talking, nothing fancy.

And what a coincidence -- one of the 5 videos Thomas6274 uploaded under the name Derek5141 on September 6 is exactly the same video uploaded by demfromny on July 25. Any comment about that video and how you got permission to upload it?

So what? Does that mean I am demfromny?. You know it is possible to download any video from youtube and then re-upload it (which I did), right?
Also, if I was working for the Paul campaign and doing activities that could shed a bad light on the Paul campaign, I would be a little smarter than to use my real first name. And if I did use my real first name for Wikipedia, why wouldn't I then use it for youtube? Obviously, at least one of the name's is not my real first name, so there is no reason to believe either one of them are. In fact, neither of them are, I am just not creative enough to come up with good usernames, so I chose those generic names. And if I really was Kubica, I am pretty sure my boss would prevent me from commenting further on Wikipedia after this whole "controversy" broke out.
Sorry, but you are badly mistaken. Thomas6274 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the concern troll who hit Daily Kos is named Thomas, whether you are that same Thomas/Huey, or whether you are some other person targeting hot-button progressive issues (Patriot Act, Bush tax cuts, marijuana, etc.) and over-simplifying Conway's statements about them ... WP articles are supposed to give a fair and NPOV account of the article topic. You are entitled to have your own POV, as I am entitled to mine, but the Conway article should be about him and not us. My concern was that the Conway article seemed to have been subjected to the same distortion that Thomas/Huey was trying on Kos. betsythedevine (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is fair to point those things out, I don't really know, I'm new here. No hard feelings. Thomas6274 (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how my remarks could feel like a personal attack, so I appreciate your thoughtful response. betsythedevine (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Betsy!

[edit]

Thanks a lot, Betsy, for your protection of Novoselov and especially "my" article - which I just saw in some history. Not that I would care either way whether an article about me exists ;-) but it is still infinitesimally better.

You don't have to worry about Novoselov too much. A somewhat longer article already existed under his nickname Kostya Novoselov - a typical Russian way to say this name - and Konstantin Novoselov was reasonably redirected to Kostya.

I hope that you're doing fine - and also that Frank is not yet too old a Nobel prize winner if you observe younger ones such as Novoselov so carefully. :-)) Yours Lubos --Lumidek (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lubos -- I got a good laugh from somebody being so quick to try to remove the article on Novoselov, so you are in good company. There was a Nobel-funded symposium on graphene this spring, where both Novoselov and Andrei Geim spoke; Geim gave a general talk that I went to myself and it was very interesting --he has a great sense of humor too. Frank is still full of energy and fun--we ran into Dudley and Georgene Herschbach recently as they were heading off to the beach with a boogie board, so don't pre-imagine us old folks into rocking chairs. :-) Hope you are also doing well and happy. betsythedevine (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BIPAC & Yudanashi

[edit]

Hi Betsy, Thank you for the heads up about the WP:COI on the BIPAC article. I went to work on changing it to make it more neutral only to find it speedily deleted. As I am not a wiki pro, how do I go about creating the article again, only even more neutral than my previous attempt? Thank you. Yudanashi (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your organization is "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, then an article could be based on what newspaper articles said about it. If BIPAC does not meet that notability guideline, it should not be the subject of an article here. The WP:COI guidelines are pretty clear that it is not a good idea to create articles about your own company or organization.betsythedevine (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Betsy, I think that the rewrites provide a much more encyclopedic POV as, instead of based on our internal history documents, is based on newspaper and online journal articles. As for the Alabama connection you added to the article, that was not BIPAC but BIPEC, the blog you linked had it listed incorrectly. We do not work in state house races, only state-wide races and congressional candidates. The BIPAC talk page has a fuller description.Yudanashi (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few different sources link BIPAC to Geddie. And the two sources talking about BIPAC contributions to Alabama candidates are WRBL News and the Decatur Daily. Can you point to reliable source stating that both were mistaken in saying that Geddie used BIPAC as one of the conduits for those donations? Rather than discuss this on my talk page, or even on the article talk page, I think we should try to find someplace read by a few more editors, such as WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#BIPAC_article_and_many_external_links_added_by_representative_of_group the original COI posting. betsythedevine (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote to this discussion -- I was mistaken in my belief that the Alabama PAC in the news after the indictment of its treasurer was related to the national PAC described by the BIPAC article. The Alabama group is registered as "BI PAC", although news stories often refer to it as BIPAC. betsythedevine (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of discussion on Rand Paul talk page

[edit]

You wrote: I will take your word for it that this particular blogger is a reliable source on this issue, accurately quoting a phone call with a staffer who works for Rand Paul. It looks to me as if your current wording fairly represents Paul's position. By the way, I not only agree with Paul that 10 - 20 year sentences are too harsh, I also agree with Conway that marijuana users should not be jailed, but if they have been acting out in such a way that they end up getting arrested, should get education and treatment, as do acting-out drinkers.

Well, I don't really want to get into a long discussion about drug policy, but as far as treatment for marijuana use, I don't think many people who use marijuana actually need treatment if they want to quit, and that very few people who use marijuana end up acting out and doing something stupid to get arrested as a result of using marijuana. If anyone needs "education" on the issue of marijuana though it's Jack Conway for saying that marijuana is a "gateway" drug and some of his other positions on the subject. I'm tired of the ignorance and fear coming from BOTH parties on this issue, and especially the Democrats who claim to champion civil liberties and freedom when it comes to social issues, but often can't even stand up for modest reforms like medical marijuana, marijuana decriminalization, and allowing industrial hemp to be grown domestically, all three of which are supported by a large majority of the American people. The Republicans are even bigger hypocrites when they talk about things like individual liberty and states' rights, but at least Rand has not shown any inclination to be a typical Republican drug warrior and actually defends states' rights on the medical marijuana issue, and if he turns out to be anything like his father on this issue that is good news for the drug policy reform movement and the future debate within the Republican Party on the issue. Unfortunately, he is not nearly as good as his father on the issue, but still better than any Republican in the senate will be, while Conway would be a step in the wrong direction for his party on the issue. That's my take on drug policy in this race for what it's worth... Glad you agree on that reference though. Thomas6274 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Jack Conway sounds more ignorant about, and less tolerant of, marijuana than Rand Paul does. But I don't see either of them doing much in DC on either side of this issue. If by Libertarian magic drug policies were written state-by-state, my guess is that liberal states like Massachusetts and California would get better laws and conservative states like Kentucky would get worse ones. also, I think the Republican party is currently 2 different parties -- one valuing individual liberty and wanting lower taxes and less government, the other wanting to pass laws against pleasures they and their aunties don't enjoy. betsythedevine (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rand Paul

[edit]

This was not vandalism, but edit requests to remove vandalism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. I thought that one of the duplicates was somebody vandalizing the talk page and the other was a request to clean it up. That is why my edit summary said "rvv and also request for vandalism cleanup." betsythedevine (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons

[edit]

It's nice you enjoy lecturing other users on "how to behave civilly" - but I think your attention is directed at the wrong person. I've had nothing but "passive-aggressive" threats levied at me by Epeefleche (who I've known on wikipedia longer than you've probably have) for simply reverting his WP:NPOV edits: User_talk:Bulldog123#Consensus.2C_edit-warring. Just be a little more perceptive next time. Thanks. Bulldog123 02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, Bulldog is responding to my comment on his talk page

If you feel some editor X is violating WP:NPOV or edit-warring or sockpuppeting, or whatever, file a report on that editor using WP:ANI or one of our other resources. Attacking or insulting another editor, as you did here is against policy -- not because we are all sweet high-minded darlings here but because our project is building encyclopedia articles. betsythedevine (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Shrugs, I guess my suggestion was unwelcome.betsythedevine (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully though, your "suggestions" are about as enlightening as don't use a blowdryer in the shower. But if it makes you feel more important: Okay, I'll be more civil. Good? Bulldog123 03:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice you enjoy lecturing other users. Please do so in future somewhere other than on my talk page.betsythedevine (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

[edit]

Your personal comments regarding me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors are neither true, nor relevant to the AfDs. Given that you recently admonished others about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I find your comments rather astonishing. Please retract them, per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for redacting your claims. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not consider it a "personal" comment when I expressed my belief that the two AfDs you filed there were an example of WP:POINT. I did not consider it a personal attack when I expressed my belief that AfDing those two articles would serve to bring defenders of those two articles the existing AfD you are fighting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Now you have asserted that your wish to see those other two articles deleted is entirely sincere and so I redacted my comments to which you objected.betsythedevine (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

[edit]

No apology needed. Believe it or not, this has been a relatively tame Jewish-list discussion. The era of Poetlister had scarred us all permanently. Bulldog123 02:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity?

[edit]

Sanity? Sadly not. Insomnia-induced hyperactivity, lubricated by alcoholic beverages, I'm afraid. If I finally get to sleep, I know I'll regret it in the morning.

Then everyone will see why I'm the Grump... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Sockpuppet investigation of Kleenezplease

[edit]

To be honest, I doubt that Kleenezplease will post again though obviously the usual IP checks could be done - I suspect they would be inconclusive. Incidentally a look at the recent edit history of List of Jewish Nobel laureates may suggest that some participating in the debate are more concerned with keeping the article than with what is actually in it ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Which admin deleted the history??? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was at the request of Dust -- apparently the edit sequence revealed an IP address he was using. I am guessing the person who did it was Alison? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alison&diff=prev&oldid=399857443 betsythedevine (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MAkes sense to me. And thank you for catching my timeline error. I have corrected my statements at the ANI. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

[edit]

Stop reverting my edits that removed PA. Also see here--Mbz1 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I am not a big important editor like yourself who can break Wikipedia policies like WP:3RR any time I feel like it.betsythedevine (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote -- This exchange of WP:UNCIVIL remarks was my first run-in with Mbz1, although the edit of hers that first caught my attention was a PA on Tarc which she later redacted, leaving it completely readable with links intact.

Later in a related dispute, somebody described a deceptive statement by Mbz1 as "intentionally deceptive." Mbz1 quickly censored that user's comment using a template I'd never seen before "nono". An admin Giftiger Wunsch undid the change which Mbz1 multiply then repeated, also Trout slapping and admonishing GW. I also twice undid Mbz1's censoring of another user's comment; then Rd232 also undid it, history here.

I was therefore not surprised to see Mbz1's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior under discussion at WP:ANI, and was willing to waste some time discussing it. I am just posting this here in the interest of disclosure of my history, not of fighting with Mbz1 in the past, but of having encountered her activities and criticized her behavior. I do not do any editing in the Israel-Palestine space. I am unaware of her activity in SPI, AE, ANI, except in a few rare cases where she and I both posted to the same ANI. In the process of looking at her most recent 100 contributions, I was amazed to see how much time and effort gets spent here arguing about which article gets picked for DYK, another area where I have not taken part. But I have wasted enough time now on this dispute. betsythedevine (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concern troll

[edit]

why would i seek consensus to edit an article simply because you disagree with the edit? what golb did is textbook 'concern troll' behavior. if you disagree, you get consensus. i'll revert, making 2x apiece. if you revert, you'll violate 3rr. if someone else reverts, i'll check for meatpuppeting. (unsigned remarks from XKV8R )

As I noted on the article talk page, it is usual to leave an article in the original, consensus state if new material is added. My reversion was not a defense of R Golb, it was a defense of Wikipedia's clear definition and example of concern troll, which your new material does not fit .. in my opinion. Since you and I have different opinions, we should both hope that others will have some clarifying thoughts on the matter. If you want to discuss this further, please do so on the article talk page.betsythedevine (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

[edit]

Possibly another sock, or just a coincidence? -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell. Thanks for watching the bio, though. betsythedevine (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

I've grown to really like you since our first encounter. You're just so perfectly no-nonsense. Don't know what barnstar is appropriate for that though. Bulldog123 22:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, BullDog. I also came to appreciate your persistence and honesty. Maybe somebody will invent a bulldog barnstar and give one to each of us. :-) betsythedevine (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

[edit]

...for your note; appreciate it! Yes, it's curious how one can write hundreds of articles with barely a comment, but fix vandalism of their userpage and you can quickly collect a showcase-load of barnstars, thank-yous, and effusions of praise. Funny place. Of all the volunteer jobs I've ever had, this one has the highest rate of burnout of people who begin to wonder if anyone even notices or cares what they do. Not sure if it's fixable. Happy holidays! Antandrus (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, and I am so pleased you are pleased ... but am I now in violation of #60 myself? For those just tuning in, I just discovered Antandrus's good-humored, funny, and charming list of Wikipedia behaviors and pitfalls. I recommend it as something that has improved my outlook and will perhaps improve my editing. betsythedevine (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betsythedevine/Archive_2010&oldid=1080367141"