User talk:JzG/Archive 36

NTWW Epsiode 34

I understand you've done speedy deletions for a long time and you've put a lot of work into that area. Not the Wikipedia Weekly didn't create Episode 34 to undermine the people who patrol new pages etc. The background is this: although our episodes discuss project level issues, during off hours we've been doing a lot of good content work. For instance, this recent expansion DYK was an off-hours collaboration. We've found that the Skype client is excellent for sharing media files so that's really fostered sound, video, and still image restorations. The idea was to translate that content work into a format we could record, since people who listen to our episodes wouldn't have seen how much real editing we do. We expected our first try at real editing during a recording might not go perfectly, but none of us anticipated a speedy deletion. That took us by surprise and we responded in good fun (see Orangemike's user talk). We'll certainly try to be more sensitive to new page patrollers in future recordings. If this leads to new solutions that make RC patrol easier it may be a good thing. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And btw, regarding the thread just above this one...see Template:Don't template the regulars. It might be a useful reply. Best, Durova^Charge! 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I already did that. You'll also find that I have thought about the supposed problem of speedy deletions before; WP:HOLE and WP:WSIC come from that. The Eric Moussambani example is particularly pertinent, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike (or at least along similar lines). I certainly had no motivation to torpedo the new page: for several months now I've been extracting WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:RS violations from popular song articles. We needed more positive examples for how pages ought to be written, because I was finding that well-meaning but newish editors were following me back to those pages, taking off the unreferenced tags, and inserting new unreliable sources. Who can blame them, when an area is really dreadful and that's the norm? So I've written and expanded several pages, partly with an eye toward raising the profile of Wikisource. It's meant a lot of hours searching through sheet music and PD recording archives, then restoring and uploading material. If things work out, newcomers who surf the area will see some decent start-class to GA work and get the idea that's the model to emulate. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 23:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is normal. Some people seem to think that bloating an article out with nonsense sourced to unreliable sources is a way of preventing deletion. Sadly, it does sometimes work. One article I cam across recently had howto content sourced from eHow - that's user edited so not reliable and in any case Wikipedia is not a howto, even for such peerless wisdom as needing to allow for comfort breaks and food during a 13 hour plus back to back showing of all the Star Wars films. I'm sure that if you or I were staging such an event this would never cross our minds, so that would be extremely helpful. Not. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We get tons of attempts to source songs articles to the IMDB and to copyvio lyrics sites. Sometimes the editors get creative, though. My personal favorite was the citation to Boy Scout Troop 92. The site looked like it had been written for a merit badge. ;) Durova^Charge! 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

← In other news, we're going to have a skypecast about it, if you're at all interested. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Skype is embargoed on all company computers, including this laptop. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Cleckheaton railway station

On 1 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cleckheaton railway station, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hurrah! Guy (Help!) 06:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#lyrikline.org

I notice the EL copyright policy seems to imply (when perhaps it shouldn't) a benefit of the doubt, is this relevant? More generally is copyright the actual problem , that is to say if it can be demonstrated that they've got relevant permissions will whitelist exemptions be granted? Thanx. Misarxist^TM 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Found relevant bit on webiste, see whitelist page. Sorry fr not checking that earlier.Misarxist^TM 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dropping in

... because I've been thinking of you a lot lately, and glad that dreadful ArbCom is over. When are you going to remove that Retired sign, ha? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Start Over

No it was not because of using bold text and policy, but it's your tone that kind of threw me for a loop , also you knew i was a regular editor on that article and you accused me as acting in bad faith and being a problem editor along with some other editors which in one case was not even involed in the talk page but accused me of not disscussing the matter when i clearly was.But in turn i wrongly accused you of vandalism, i thought because there was a previous consensus(though a very weak one) to keep the gallery(which if you check the archive i was for removing the gallery) i thought we should have gave time to disscuss before removing and give some other regular editors a chance to respond. Yes the gallery was randomly selected pics by various editors but under many governmental sources(government sources are the most unbiased in this case) everybody in the gallery could be considered white, but than you turned around after removing one arbitrary picture mess you suggested embarking on a new picture folly and what would we be doing by adding new pics the same thing that was already done pick random pics and throw em together in the article and use terms like exempary white people, that sounds like a nordicist type view like lets poster the page up with so-called nordic type white folk. I think using various governmental sources such as United States, Latin America and European would be best most unbiased way to have pics in the article but what you and another editor have been suggesing by picking people who are exempary whites is far more arbitrary than what was previously done thats why either way you slice it having any kind of pics is to subjective and ultimately leads to P.O.V because somebody will have to pick new pics in some way--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what your plans were or are for that article, all I know is that the gallery seemed to me to fail several tests of encyclopaedic merit, including the rather important one of objectivity. I'd remind you that you started our exchange by leaving a template vandalism message on my talk page, which suggests that you might not have understood why I was at that page in the first place. In my view the onus is always on those seeking to include disputed content, to justify it and achieve consensus. We don't leave random junk in an article while we examine our navels, we take it out and debate it on Talk. Or at least I do, because I have seen too much junk. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me with OTRS?

I'd like to ask if you could please spare a little time to help me understand what I need to do as it's been suggested that I forward an email to OTRS? The background is that the article Oxygen toxicity has a link to a very useful YouTube video, but there was a question raised about whether we were linking to copyvio material. I managed to track down the creator of that video and found that they used YouTube to host the videos shown on their website. I used the contact form on their website to explain that we wanted to link to that video and received an email response. I then copied the correspondence to the talk page. I understand the purpose of OTRS and I've read through WP:OTRS and m:OTRS but still can't sort out what I need to include in the email forward to OTRS to allow the volunteers to make sense of the email for this case. It's not a question of including material under GFDL, just noting that the owner of an external resource has no copyvio-type problem with our link to their material which is hosted on YouTube. As I know you are an OTRS volunteer, any help you can offer would be much appreciated. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's pretty straightforward, the originator needs to send an email to OTRS which notes that he owns copyright and giving some credible evidence that he is the YouTube uploader. Or simply link a page on his website which has the video embedded, which would probably avoid the question arising again later. You could also ask Durove, who does permissions (I mainly do not) Guy (Help!) 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy, for your prompt and helpful response. It is much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Poker

Cactusframe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who has only added negative information about politicians who have voted against poker gambling. The user cites ratings from the Poker Players Alliance to criticize trival matters of that group's opinion. I think this is a serious POV issue. What should be done? We66er (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I agree this is a problem. If we started adding in every advocacy group that has an axe to grind against every politician, we'd never be able to achieve neutrality. Since none of these claims have any source outside of the originating group, they fail the tests for inclusion and the text should be removed in every case. If the user continues doing this then they can be reported to WP:ANI or the BLP noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Removing ratings of any lobbying group seems fine. Blocking as "spam" a million member lobbying group that any sensible person can see easily is supported by thousands of reliabe source mentions is absurd, and making the complaint yourself and immedialy blocking it yourself is wrong. Please remove this inappropriate block immediately. Any articles where the links are inappropriate can be dealt with in the usual manner. 2005 (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The debate is at WP:AN, not here, please keep the discussion to as few venues as possible. I gave my reasoning there. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree Guy. We66er (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just lovely

If you aren't interested, then don't comment in the first place. If you do have an opinion - or as you say "if you're going to be a dick" - you should have the courtesy to stand up for what you say. Wikidea 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• To be clear, I am not interested in spreading this to multiple venues, specifically my talk page. One discussion is enough. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Loanable funds market at T:TDYK

Let's keep the discussion on our talk pages if possible, because I would rather not watch the DYK page for fear of crashing my watchlist :) Anyways, as I asked there, "What do you think of moving it to Loanable funds?" Gary King (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Probably better. It's the description of it as a "hypothetical market" which seems to me to be problematic - and of course the idea that by having a loan everyone is somehow participating in that market, which is a bit of a stretch and is really just a way of saying that the loan portfolio of banks and other institutions, with its associated revenue stream, forms part of their value. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright; how about a hook like "... that equilibrium occurs in the loanable funds market when savings equal investment?" Gary King (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But that still looks like a novel synthesis from the published sources. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The references that I use in the article all back that up and state it in a similar fashion. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'm taking a few days off, I have some things that a re filling my time and Wikipedia is (as always) an irresistable distraction. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for John Fancy

On 10 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Fancy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

FYI and thank you. [1].--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table

Don't strictly need to notify you, and might be best if you didn't get involved again, but I thought you might still be interested in following this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Old RFA

Is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yuckfoo still in progress or can it be deleted? MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Hoser

Hi there, I've added some peer-reviewed articles that discuss this guy's work to the article. Could you take another look at it and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Idiothek

Hey, I didn't see a rationale for this block, though I assume it is appropriate. It would be helpful if you could elaborate on the user's talk page, if you remember anything more about it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. This user never made a talk page comment until now when he requested unblocking... and his manner of speaking there makes me convinced he isn't Jon Awbrey. Awbrey is much more sophist and formal than this guy. Sorry if this steps on your toes, Guy, but you're on break and the request needs answering. Mangojuice^talk 02:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Article on Ky Governor Steve Beshear

"The content you are repeatedly inserting fails our policies. We cannot include every random pressure group that has a view on any politician, this violates our undue weight clause and our biography policy. If you continue to add these random pieces o=f advocacy into articles then two things may happen: first, you may be blocked from editing, and second, the site you insist on linking may be blacklisted to prevent further links on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)"

Guy,

Hi. I understand you get a lot of spammers, but I am a reputable user. Perhaps you're not familiar with the situation with Gov. Beshear in KY, or with the media coverage that backs my edits.

First of all, the two people who edited my changes weren't even registered users (and were first-time editors). In fact, they may even work for the governor, for all we know. I followed procedure by using the discussion page and by citing my sources. These unknown people, OTOH, just deleted stuff.

Second, the Poker Players Alliance has over one million members. That's more than the Christian Coalition and many other organizations that are permitted to have their ratings in articles. PPA also spends more in lobbying than these groups. So, how is the determination made of whose ratings count? Can I delete all the CC ratings in Wikipedia? Surely it's not arbitrary.

And, by the way, Beshear's efforts to censor the Internet are a big deal. It even has the potential to affect Wikipedia. What if Saudi Arabia takes your name for showing representations of Muhammad?

Here's a portion of mainstream media coverage that back my edits:

Op-ed: http://www.kentucky.com/589/story/553995.html

Op-ed: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081007/OPINION04/810070309/1016/OPINION

Forbes (syndicated in many papers via AP): http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/10/06/ap5515715.html

Local news coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VPQxbD7Xk

Local news coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qpi9L6fIhw

Local news coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsxq98vSNEc

Newspaper article: http://www.murrayledger.com/articles/2008/10/08/top_story/news01.txt

Newspaper article: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081008/NEWS01/810080785/-1/cjextra

Thank you for considering,

Cactusframe (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought this might amuse you

Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square#Discussion about homelessness. Let me know if this makes WP:LAME. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

TV Centre planning kerfuffle mystery

All hail, O Fellow-Brompton User! Was labouring over the lead of the TV Centre article, not because I have any investment in it but because, having just stumbled across it, the opening appearance offended my sense of aesthetics, syntax, etc. I too was puzzled by the petition/listing stuff in the final clause or two, (particularly since I know really nothing about either planning procedures or petitions & am frankly not terribly interested). Was just trying to clean the thing up. Just wondering what you meant by "inappropriate reference", exactly. So can I can avoid reinstating some ballsup :) Regards Wingspeed (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fold - unfold - fold - unfold....

Online petitions are a bit of a problem; we have a lot of text which is either sourced direct from a petition with no independent coverage to establish that the petition is significant, and in some cases the petition is added as soon as it's created in a pretty blatant attempt to canvass signatures. I'm going through removing this, it's the sort of thing I do with all unreliable sources (see User:JzG/Unreliable sources for the kind of thing I routinely prune out). There is no bar to creating an online petition, no cost, and no indication of how much vote-stacking has gone into it. So if a petition is significant (as some are) then we should discuss it by reference to independent secondary sources that give context. I'm guessing you'll agree with that as a rule of thumb. I discussed this on the admin noticeboard recently and there was a chorus of approval: Wikipedia is not the place to pull in signatures, and is not supposed (by policy) to draw inferences direct from primary sources of unknown significance. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Shirley McKie

While this post you deleted probably breaks a bunch of policies, I don't believe WP:BLP is one of them, as the post was made by Patrick Haseldine himself. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever, it needed gone. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

petitions.uk etc

Very well, take it back out then. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Amazing, that's never happened before. Apart from consistently. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)