User talk:Bschott/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the archived talk page for June, July, and the first week of August 2006

Alien Technology deletion discussion

Don't worry too much about "fighting" the deletion. If you tally the opinions so far on the discussion page, it will be kept. The only nay-sayer is StanMan, and that's just not enough weight.

Incidentally, in the future the best way to "fight" a deletion is to provide information that shows that the subject is notable. The article itself might have problems, but that's never reason for deletion. The only reason (ultimately) for deletion is when the subject of the article does not deserve an article in an encyclopedia. Opinion of editors (aided by various notability guidelines) is the determining factor, so "fighting" is a matter of changing the voting editors' minds with solid, Wikipedia-relevant reasons. Just FYI. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, unrelatedly: it's best to leave messages on your Talk page so that others can be aware of your involvement in the project. If it gets too long, most people make an archive to clean up the page, giving a link to the archive. (I can show you how to do that in a tidy way if you like.) We like continuity at Wikipedia. :) (Oh, and that doesn't mean you can't remove blatantly antagonistic messages, like StanMan left just recently. I'm thinking more of the "please sign your Talk page comments" message that another editor left you.) — Saxifrage ✎ 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saxifrage: I believe he had deleted it, but if I had I appologize, I may have made a mistake when surfing my page.--Bschott 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake! The message left by that other editor was removed when StanMan left his messages here, according to this page's edit history. It's good advice anyway, but obviously didn't need giving in this case. My bad. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take you up on that offer to show me how to archive my talk page...and if you would be able to help, I am completely lost on how to make my 'user' page.--Bschott 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

That's an acronym for Wikipedia:Assume good faith, good advice and a fundamental policy at Wikipedia. It's relevance to the current kerfuffle is that you ought to avoid accusing StanMan of ulterior motives, as should he you. Your involvement with the company means you should take the advice at WP:AUTO (short for Autobiographical, which is a bit of a misnomer) to heart. StanMan seems to think that it means you ought not to contribute to the article at all and that it's somehow "tainted" and ought to be removed because of that, but that's not what WP:AUTO is about. If you do get tempted to boost the company experienced editors will call you on it, but it's not a stick to beat people with.

So, avoid minding his biases and pay attention only to what bias might show in his edits to articles, and he would be well-advised to do the same. It makes editing much more harmonious and less stressful when people aren't being hostile and suspicious of each other directly and instead focus on the quality of each other's output. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree whole heartedly. As I pointed out on his page I don't own nor make any decisions for Alien nor am I in management. If a person works for a company, I see no reason why they couldn't make sure the information on wiki is at least correct, which you also pointed out. If a person worked for Microsoft and saw an error on their page, would that person have to let it go because they work for that company? Obviously the answer is no, as long as bias is not brought in. (Correcting a mispelled name or adding a new product to the list of products made by a company).

I'll admit I work at a very low/entery level office position, but I have nothing to do with management nor decision making. Just very proud of the company and want to now make sure the information on the page is correct.

I want to point out the Alien page was made on 23:41, 21 July 2003 by IP 208.201.196.175. I started working for them in 2004 and my first edit of the company page was at 02:58, 14 July 2006. I just saw the deletion an became concerned on why someone would do that. --Bschott 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most simples mistakes that need correcting in an article wouldn't be subject to bias, no, but it's still a matter of "if in doubt, leave it to someone else". (Or better yet, say that it's incorrect on the Talk page of the article and allow independent editors to look at it and judge, and change the article.) Often, the problematic edits are when someone is correcting what they feel is a mistake but the available sources disagree with the "correction". Wikipedia specifically dispriviledges personal information in favour of external sources even if they might be wrong, and that's just the nature of Wikipedia as a tertiary reference work. In any case, tread lightly and you'll stay in the clear easily.

Here's a concrete example. The IPO links are of questionable encyclopedic merit, and some will see it as unnecessary. (A strict reading of WP:LINKS might support that.) If someone removes it, it's in your best interest to not contest that by re-adding them. If leaving it be doesn't seem right, the way to contest it would be to offer a compelling argument on the Talk page as to why it ought to be re-included, and then let your words do what work they can.

And don't take that last bit as a disapproving note or anything. I just follow the philosophy of giving people more information at the risk that they won't need some of it, rather than leave things unsaid and have them end up needing that unspoken advice. Cheers! — Saxifrage ✎ 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving a Talk page

Sorry I haven't replied for a bit. I've had my hands full elsewhere. Anyway, for a full guide to archiving, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

In brief, I add a new link at the top of the page with a link like [[/Archive 1/]] (the slashes inside the brackets make it link to a page named Archive 1 that is filed under your Talk page, instead of an independent page), which will look like this: Archive 1 and which will lead to the same place as if you had linked to User talk:Bschott/Archive 1.

Once I have the link, I'll open the link to the new archive page in a new window and in the old window I'll edit my Talk page again so I can see it's contents. I'll copy all the contents of the Talk page below the new link into the new archive and save it, then delete all of that from the Talk page and save that. Then you should have a nearly-blank Talk page with only a link at the top, and that should lead to a page with all the old messages.

(As a note, there's also a way of using the page-move/rename feature to make archives, which is covered in the How-to link above. However, I like to avoid that because it moves the history of my talk page to the archive too and I prefer to have the history all in one place. Especially once there is more than one archive, if I've used the page-move method of archiving then the history is scattered across multiple pages.) — Saxifrage ✎ 00:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Off the top of my head, the best way I can think to propose and manage the merger (assuming people like it) is to propose it on the Talk page of the most active article and hold discussion there, with a mention of the proposed merger and link to the discussion placed on the Talk pages of the other relevant articles.

Note too that if the articles are low-traffic enough that there is no-one to discuss changes with, you can Be Bold and just perform the merger. If there are, after all, people who are concerned about the merger, they'll notice after you've been bold and done it, and that will be the time to hold discussions about whether the merger is a good idea or should be undone in favour of some other arrangement (including, possibly, changing it back to the current status quo).

This is just off the top of my head, how I would approach it. There might be a better way of going about that I don't know about, and you could try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

Hello. I'm sorry if I have caused you offence, but I don't see how Per wiki's manual of style is rude in any way. Even though you reference manual may say that "users" should be capitalized, the style on Wikipedia is to use lowercase, hence my edit summary. If you're interested, the Manual of Style is located here --§hanel 04:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Brooke Brodack

Sorry - I forgot to get back to you. I was using the disputed merger template in deference to the person who suggested the merge. Viridae ^Talk 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, actually I had suggested it but I figured it didn't need to happen since we could just turn that Notable page into a Fork. I could use some serious help on that page though and I know you are a fair editor... :) --Bschott 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is a definate copyright problem. There are instructions on how to proceed at WP:CP. It has been there too long for a speedy, so follow the article instructions. Blank the article, because there is no revision you can revert to because it is all a vio. Good luck :) I am going to bed. If you have any further problems or questions, I am always willing to help. Seeya, Viridae ^Talk 14:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable YouTube Users

Dear Bschott,

Your reply hasn't changed my mind. I have looked at all the videobloggers mentioned there, and I still had to come to the conclusion that all they are known for is just a collection of videos at YouTube that have gained underground attention. I may have used the wrong words when redirecting that page, causing you to be upset. I said "non-notable internet users"...while I actually meant "non-notable list of internet users". My apoligies for that, that was definetely not what I was aiming for. Furthermore, you said:

 ..how is it that the community decided..

I have looked at Talk:Notable YouTube users and Talk:YouTube, but I couldn't find traces of this "consensus" of which you speak. It's just you announcing something. Also;

 ..I can't put them on the YouTube page itself because the community does
 not believe they should be on that page...

You can't put three links on the YouTube page? Have you got proof of people editing it out countless times, because I can't believe it. Just those links in the 'See Also' section is the way it SHOULD be.

That's the way it should be handled.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things that may help you understand.

1) There was a merger discussion on both Brookers and Emmalina's pages to merge them into one article, but that was rejected and the only concensus that could be achieved was a list/fork page. Researching would have shown this. Of course this discussion wasn't on the Notable page...it was on the pages that were going to be merged INTO the notable page.

2) No, I can't put the three links on the YouTube page, because as you failed to research the youtube page history or talk page again, you missed how the 'famous' or 'notable' users did have a spot but was removed and heavily discussed. Even links, as the history shows, have been removed until people just gave up. My 'proof' is in the talk and history of the page. Your failure to look deeper before making heavy handed moves is not my fault.

3) I am trying to make this section of Wiki work and I am being delt with heavy handed by an Admin and block on the other side by other editors.--Bschott 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]