92.8.92.108 has now, since his/her block expired, vandalized my page. His/her campaign continues. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC#top|talk]]) 20:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
92.8.92.108 has now, since his/her block expired, vandalized my page. His/her campaign continues. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC#top|talk]]) 20:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:Nah, no suggestion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_living_supercentenarians&action=historysubmit&diff=451355585&oldid=451336142 a campaign coordiniated off-wiki campaign]. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC#top|talk]]) 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
:Nah, no suggestion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_living_supercentenarians&action=historysubmit&diff=451355585&oldid=451336142 a campaign coordiniated off-wiki campaign]. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC#top|talk]]) 17:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
::I detect sarcasm, but nonetheless, to take you literally: I am glad that you agree that there is no coordinated off-wiki campaign! Yay! :-) By the way, I recognized the conversation that the anonymous editor was talking about regarding The 110 Club. It can be found here: <b>z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=2729<b>. It looks like Nick appeared to misunderstand how FLAGBIO was not applicable to a war-related page, so therefore, he assumed that flags were okay now and asked others for assistance. I don't know the history behind this, but I can check into this. Rest assured, this is not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Garden_%281987_film%29 The Secret Garden]. :-) 19:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
==Flag Icons. Again.==
==Flag Icons. Again.==
Revision as of 19:50, 19 September 2011
EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN
Caution: This is a very powerful tool.
Handle With Utmost Care
Hello, David in DC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over 4 million articles in a host of languages. The English Language Wikipedia alone has over 1 million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site.
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.
Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
I've just reverted the category "Statutory rapists" from the articles of Buz Lukens, Dan Crane and Gerry Studds. I've explained why in my edits, on one of the articles' talk pages and on the talk page of the "new" editor who inserted them. This editor began editing under the name Lemonsquares, a week or so ago. Another edit I found in his history was one labelling a politician Jewish. The politician's congressional biography states that he's buried in a "Beth El Cemetary" so I'm inclined to believe the information is accurate and have left it alone. Nonetheless, these four edits --- three labeling politicians with a derogatory sexual category and a fourth labelling a politician a Jew --- sure seem, ummmm, familiar. I'd appreciate it if others kept an eye out for similarities to the edits of Tommy/John. Thanks David in DC (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - there is no excuse this time for allowing Celona to reappear, and not be dealt with. A user check is in order. Can you request through SA? --Jkp212 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it likely. The account is clearly not a new user and the interest in adding categories in regards to sex crimes with minors is a major red flag. Nothing conclusive yet, but I'll keep an eye on him anyway. AniMate09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep an eye on this too. It does strike me as odd when someones first edits are to add (inflammatory?) categories to articles. Looking through the edits I don't see anything to incendiary, but I'll keep watching just in case. Frankly, I could care less if John celona returns, as long as he doesn't continue the behavior that lead to his bannings. AniMate23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced Celona/Tommy reappeared as Lemonsquares, who, within a month was showing his true colors and was banned as a sock of RWReagan. A few days later, Emma appears, making sex-scandal related edits to pages both John celona and Lemonsquares edited before their respective bans. I do care if he/she reappears. It can bode no good. Banned editors should not be able to evade bans by shedding skin and blithely resuming editing. David in DC (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm on board with the Lemonsquares as a sock, but I think you misunderstand me about not caring. I don't care if Celona comes back and starts editing if he does so in a positive manner and stays within Wikipedia's guidelines. Tommypowell didn't and he was banned. Same for Celona and Lemonsquares. If he continues this kind of behavior then he'll keep getting banned, if he returns and starts editing productively, then we probably won't even know if its him or not and he can stay. That's all. I'm skeptical that he'd be willing to return and edit productively though, as his taste for salacious and inappropriate conjecture seems to be the only editing he cares about. AniMate23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure if John celona/Tommypowell is involved in this, as it appears you've stumbled upon a completely different sock farm. Celona tended to focus on rather graphic or at least inflammatory sexual details. These socks seem to specialize in copyright vios (and adding lots of categories). Interesting. I suppose Alison (the checkuser who blocked EmmaRoad) might be able to shed some light on this. Probably just boils down to there being alot of freaks out there. AniMate08:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where I tangled with Emma is exactly the same kind of issue as we saw from Tommy/John. See edit history of David Wu, Allan Howe and Bob Wise. Sex and politicians. Last time around, he or she used massive clean-up and edits to many congressional info boxes and bios to obscure the controversial edits. This time it was massive edits to record the religious identification of Members of Congress. But slipped in, there's always a return to exposing sexually titilating information. David in DC (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not thoroughly convinced, as there appears to be a linear progression of socks associated with The Mystery Man and John/Tommy's edits overlap his. We'll probably never know, but the good news is that some administrators are aware that this kind of problematic editing is occurring and anyone who engages is in it will likely be blocked. Regardless, you're doing great work in the WP:BLP area. Keep it up. AniMate23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This bears watching. No proof except my crap detector. But the account was established 5 days after Emma was blocked as a sock puppet and a few of the first edits follow the old congressional infobox clean-up edit pattern. Then a few finishing up the physicians/dentists/etc in Congress category Emma was working on. Now he's moved on to categorizing homosexuals, including creating a brand new category for LGBT Democrats and filling it up. Also identifying LGBT politicians who aren't Democrats. Nothing wildly inappropriate, but banned editors should not be able to evade bans. David in DC (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This IP editor bears watching. The pattern is very close. many edits, mostly in our friend's area of obsession, the intersection between sex, politics and scandal. I'm going to be afk for a couple of days, chaperoning a middle school trip to Ellis Island. Would someone please watch this and take appropriate action. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested an investigation. I'd still feel better if I knew others were watching this. Thanks to anyone who takes up my request. (MB?, SI?, Aleta? AniMate?) David in DC (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems at least possible that a reader may type the name in looking for the case, so the redirect seemed to solve some BLP issues (as well as the fact that the article on Mr Krar had no real content) as well as being of service to our readership. Apologies for not notifying you directly. Thanks for you understanding and happy editing! Pedro : Chat 15:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, your 'form' comment over on my talk page about William Krar being an "attack page" and threatening me with blocking for having created it is IMO way out of line. Perhaps it was worth redirecting, perhaps not, but it certainly wasn't an attack page. Please be more careful with tossing accusations like that around in the future. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know, any work on that site that was produced by the U.S. government is public domain, as American copyright law on this point would override any claims otherwise on any website. Also from what I know, though, one of us is a lawyer and it isn't me. It might be worth bringing this at Media Copyright Questions, as some of the people there are more knowledgeable than I am. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I protected it last time, I'll do it again. Just say the word (on my talkpage) if the IPs jump in the river again....all jokes aside. :-) Keeperǀ7621:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rock music WikiProject
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advice
Hi. I hope you don't mind that I am asking you for advice. A few hours ago this page was changed. The tabloid cited or better the author was out for revenge then but it the attack fell flat because the whole issue has not been pursued by the mainstream media as intended. Anyway. I would not really object to adding the name except that WP:RS will prevent it as there are none. I have deelted the material, which was added in a way that IMO shows what the real intention was. What I am wondering is if there is a way to get the links deleted from the history without having to address this on BLP:ongoing concerns and starting the fuss all over again. I am quite new to WP and thanks to you I am bit more familiar now with the "inner workings". But I am still a novice. So any advice is very welcome. Thanks. (Jamesbeat (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This is likely too late to be useful, but for future reference: any administrator can do what you ask by deleting the offending revisions from the page history (I'm always happy to help with that sort of thing, and if it's sensitive you can even e-mail me rather than asking on my talk page). In extreme cases, there are also a limited number of users with an ability called "oversighting", which not only deletes them but prevents even admins from viewing or restoring them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to do this for some time, but just now got around to doing so. Now please take that annoying practical joke new message bar down. Not sure if you remember the drama it originally caused... but it was epic (epically boring and ridiculous, but still). AniMate05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And thank you for your advice on the practical joke box. I saw it and laughed out loud. I had no idea it had a history. I've taken it down. David in DC (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David - I think you're getting very close to the point that you should consider applying for adminship, if doing so holds any interest to you. I think the tools would likely be useful to you in your BLP work. There are some cons as well (not so much cons about being an administrator as about going through the process to become one), but I figure there's no point in discussing those until I know whether or not you're at all interested. Anyway, let me know - here or at my place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have proposed deletion of the David Huckabee article under AfD for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations. I do not think he is notable simply because he is the son of Mike Huckabee, nor do I believe his crime (alleged) makes him notable. I saw that you have been a major contributor on the talk page, and wanted to notify you in case you might have interest in commenting or following the discussions. Thank you. CorpITGuy (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David - just noticed that you put a "support" vote under the "oppose" heading for Wizardman's Arb Comm candidacy [1]. As it stands now, that's being counted as an oppose vote, so you might want to go back and either move it to the support section or change the wording to make your intention clearer. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I like contributing here and your kind guidance has, time and again, helped keep me from inflicting too much damage while I type as if I were using my toes. David in DC (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Bonnet
Deleting an article that had existed for over two years without informing interested parties is not kosher. Sebastian Bonnet gets over 79,000 hits on Google search. The fact that few people knew about this AFD can be seen by its being re-listed after no response (it's the holidays). Deletion review is best used for contested deletions. Even those who voted "delete" noted that there were plenty of sources. It seems it was only deleted as a way to force people to clean it up, which is an abuse of AFD. Also of note, AFD is not a vote; the best arguments should win. However, given that no one was informed of the AFD, there was no way to make comments.
Ryoung12212:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical issue: How can you add a "deletion review" to a page that doesn't exist? The page had to be re-created first. If you wish to list this on deletion review, be my guest. But if the only issue was lack of sources (and there are plenty) then there was no issue, the article should exist, and the deletion for the third time shouldn't have happened.Ryoung12213:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical solution: The page does not have to be recreated first. The deletion review page quite explicitly lays out the steps for requesting review of a deletion. It does not include recreating the page. Instead, if unable to resolve the issue by directly contacting the closing admin, one adds a bit of code that's helpfully provided on the deletion review page to the active discussion part of that very same page. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be honest: some people don't like porn on Wikipedia, and there is a campaign by some to delete porn-related articles. But given the wide currency that this name has, I'm sure that in the end, this is no Franken-Coleman contest. It's more a Saxby Chambliss-Jim Martin one.Ryoung12213:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be honest: some people think biographies of living people can rely on imdb, iafd and/or one of Luke Ford's blogs exclusively. These people are wrong.
There's nothing wrong with porn on Wikipedia. There's everything wrong with posting alleged information about living people without references to WP:reliable sources. IMDB, IAFD, LukeFord.com, lukeisback.com, etc. are not reliable sources. # of Google hits alone does not establish notability.
If one wanted to create a proper article, one might look among all those darn Google hits. Even if one never found any reliable sources, one would get to view a whole lot of nifty pictures. Best not to try it from work though. Cheers, David in DC (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David in DC, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. The issue is not porn as something to view per se, but issues of history, fairness, equal treatment, legitimacy, respect. True, even the porn world uses people...one day they're "famous," the next day someone else is. But should this rush to the latest fad lead to a deletion/erasure of those who have gone before, especially if they left a mark? Bonnet won the "Freshman of the Year" in 2004; he is not a marginal player. He also passes the "Google hits" test. Further, what is the rationale for deletion? Why does not article not qualify when others do?
There are other issues as well. True, this may be a character, not a real person, so should "biographies of living person" really apply?
Finally, your comment about "nifty pictures" and "best not to try it from work though" is offensive. You are suggesting a lower, base motive for my support of this article's creation. Let me be honest: I do not have this star's DVDs or tapes. "Not try it from work" is a typical de-legitimating comment.
However, as Coretta Scott King once said, a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. This is a human rights issue, one of respect, legitimation. While some porn companies have treated their subjects like dirt, Bel Ami has won awards for treating its subjects humanely. That Bonnet chose to become a director of Bel Ami after his career was up says a lot about the quality of the organization. After all, no one who was "exploited" would want to exploit others in turn. Ryoung12213:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revision as of 06:14, 6 January 2009 (edit) (undo)David in DC (Talk | contribs) (Notable? I'm not sure. But I am sure questioning his notability is not a political attack. It's important to use edit summaries, but even more important that they be intelligible.)Next edit →
Maybe it's not a "political attack," but it sure looks suspiciously like a vendetta, as I am the same editor, and your comments are similar to the Sebastian Bonnet debate.
The irony is that Paul Baltes, along with his wife, developed a method of measuring "wisdom." Just yesterday you claim that a "wise man" does X, but now you question the wisdom of having an article on a man who was the world's leading expert on "wisdom."
Ryoung12214:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you see a vendetta where there is none. On my blog yesterday (same name as here), I wrote about a Yiddish aphorism I learned from my grandmother and unwittingly transmitted to my son. Last night, I was up past midnight reading snitches and snatches of numerous Google searches. I was looking for more about folk wisdom from Germany or Poland, or in Yiddish. Serendipity and Murphy's Law conspired to dump me at the Baltes page. I was startled to find you at the top of the edit history.
I explain all this in greater detail than necessary because I have now perused more on your talk page than just the recent Bonnet stuff and conclude that it's best to explain once and disengage. Good fortune to you, sir. David in DC (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's now archived with no response except from the editor whose edits I question. Kinda disappointing. Maybe I'm right, maybe he's right, but zero interest in this series of edits by anyone other than the two of us really troubles me. David in DC (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some dolt at my place of work has gotten our IP address blocked. It's only for a day or two, at least for now, and I don't really desparately need access to WP at work. But a page I monitor, Shy Love, has a determined IP editor inserting unsourced personal biographical details. In my view, the insertions violate WP:BLP. Would you please look at the page and see if you agree? If so, would you please take appropriate action? If I ever find out who Toastman5 is, I'll fart in his/her general direction and indicate that his/her mother was a hamster and his/her father smelt of elderberries. David in DC (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
I appreciate the good faith and restraint the editors who disagree with me have shown in the discussion of Sam Adams. Everybody seems to be showing the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and give important matters due consideration. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are separate issues for the others then maybe you should start a thread on each. To me, they all seem to have the same principles involved. If I'm wrong, please explain how they're different. Will Bebacktalk21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits also appeard to be "mass". I don't see any individual discussion and you used the same edit summary in each case. Let's find a consensus on this on the WP:BLPN or category talk page before making further additions or deletions. Will Bebacktalk21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In common law, IIRC, felonies have prison terms of over 1 year, while lesser sentences are given for misdemeanors. A four-day sentence for contempt of court hardly seems equivalent to a felony conviction. However, if you want to assert that if LaGrotta deserves the category then so does King feel free to make that argument. It appears spurious to me. Will Bebacktalk21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what happened before, but I doubt mass rollback would work as others have edited many of the same articles after him. You could just go through his contributions and remove any that you feel are incorrect or inappropriate. KnightLago (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a question at the bot request you made. Please take a look when you get a chance. KnightLago (talk)
Disagreeing
Disagreeable? Do you mean calling a bizarre suggestion "bizarre"? I was referring to the suggestion, not to the editor. That's no more out of line than calling other proposals "BLP violations". So long as we're commenting on the edits (or proposals), and not the editors, I don't think there's a problem. Will Bebacktalk07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever use these edit summaries, seriatem, and claim I'm not being disagreeable, please trout-slap me, quick
All of the totally constructive recent edits with the totally constructive edit summary "sharper cat" are a sight to behold. Bravo, Will. David in DC (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! I've put some more refs for this info. I thought this was a well known fact, that is why i provided only one ref 4 this info (from Hudson himself). I hope U can choose more reliable refs now (and remove the old ref for this info). Regards! V1t12:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the edits, not the editors
A number of your recent comments and edit summaries have focused on me as an individual, which is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. This posting,[2] for example, has little to do with the subject matter and seems mostly to be a complaint about my behavior. If you wish to complain about me then the right places to do so are on my user talk page or through one of the dispute resolution boards. Will Bebacktalk21:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about oxygen and sex but the article probably gets vandalised just as much! It's more my reversions that have shaped the article than my additions. I couldn't believe it when that hotdog stand rivalry bubbled over into this article! I've added the hidden comment now (see here). It may seem a little over the top but it'll do the trick. At least it's not like the one on Michael Ballack. I laughed my arse off when I first saw that! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good little link there! The constructive capitalist in me (or is it the Marxist socialist?) regards such gains as not just ill-gotten, but fraudulent and theft! People's ignorance and complicity is this process is, in no hyperbolic terms, responsible for a good portion of economic problems. Good stuff. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roberta Pedon
Thanks for your hard work on this article. I've left a note on the talk page of the article, and I'm hoping you can respond there. None of the sources used seem to pass WP:RS and there is no way to verify her death. I'm of the opinion that her birth/date dates should be removed from the article because frankly, those are completely without sourcing. Cheers. Lawtype!snype?03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a friend from Penn if he ever heard of F&H. I sense it is a hoax, given the lack of footnotes and a direct lift from text I provided on three Yale societies.
If you're making a ref name tag, the proper formatting is <ref name = name>{{cite whatever | information = stuff }}</ref> for the first one, subsequent references use <ref name = name/>. The slash before the terminal > is what is important, and makes the </ref> unnecessary. Thought you'd be interested, given your recent edits to The Awareness Center. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey David - good to see you're editing again. It's now been more than a year since I asked if you'd be interested in being nominated for adminship, so I thought I'd try again. The process to get adminship can be a little unpleasant, and I'm not sure whether you'd be successful (that's no slight on you, but rather on the somewhat arbitrary basis of many users' support/oppose decisions), but we can always use more BLP-sensitive admins. Anyway, let me know, and either way it's nice to see you back. Steve Smith (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jake Brahm. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kelly O'Dell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly O'Dell. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
Hey there, I did look for a discussion on this strange name phrasing, and then I tried to start a discussion on the talk page more than month ago that got no response. However, after looking at it again, I do see that I missed the archive which I have now read. I would like to revisit this issue because since the time of the incident, Breedlove is writing a memoir and has appeared in several magazines with the story. If you'd like to comment on my original talk page post, that might be a good start. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, regarding the attack warning you left on my talk page. I have made only two minor edits. In the first, I erroneously made the section heading lowercase, then realized that "Parent" was a surname. See edit diff. I am certain that you have the wrong editor. Esowteric+Talk22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, a number of editors, at least two of them admins, got attack page creator warned. You might want to revert or explain the templated warnings. Cheers, Dlohcierekim23:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Wow. What a nice thing to come home to after an extended sojourn in real life. I'm touched and honored. I'll be around more again, so this is very cool. I'll wield any authority very lightly. David in DC (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, David in DC! We are looking for editors to join the Smithsonian Institution collaboration, an outreach effort which aims to support collaboration such as Wiki-Academies, article writing, and other activities to engage the Smithsonian Institution in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!
Hi there, I'm LiAnna Davis, the communications associate for the Wikimedia Foundation's new Public Policy Initiative. We are currently looking for dedicated Wikipedians near the George Washington University and Georgetown University areas to serve as Campus Ambassadors, and I hope you might be interested or know someone who is.
Volunteer Campus Ambassadors will provide face-to-face training and support for professors and students on Wikipedia-related skills, such as how to create new articles, how to add images, how the talk pages work, etc. If you're especially enthusiastic and know people on campus, you can set up Wikipedia-related student groups and organize "Welcome to Wikipedia" social events.
The estimated time commitment for this role is 3-5 hours a week, possibly slightly more at the very beginning and very end of the semester. The Wikimedia Foundation will hold a mandatory three-day training for all Campus Ambassadors in August, and we will continue to stay in contact with and offer full support for the Campus Ambassadors throughout the academic semester.
Please let us know if this is something that sounds interesting to you or if you know of any other Wikipedians near George Washington or Georgetown who could help out. Feel free to respond on Annie Lin's talk page or email her at alin@wikimedia.org (Annie is our Campus Team Coordinator). --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My accusation regarding Wiki-stalking was primarily directed at JJBulten. I see you and Grismaldo as being "recruited" by him as a sort of way to "bully" his way to acceptance for what is, in fact, non-mainstream, non-scientific hocus-focus.
Further, we saw a false charge from O Fenian, I wonder if he is going to apologize now that it turns out that he was wrong about my reporting the alleged death of Margaret Fish to Wikipedia.Ryoung12203:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never met him. I've never interacted with him except in open communication on-wiki. We are not working together. We disagreed about Timenu's first summary at the AfD. I've counselled Longevitydude on civility, civilly, and he responded civilly. It's up above. It wouldn't hurt for you to go to his page and read my counsel to him. It would apply in spades to the tone of your edits.
Re-reading your comments above, I just noticed something very funny. I think it's a typo, but whether it is or not, I'm adopting it into my vocabulary as a neologism. Hocus-focus. Perfect. Thanks.
Sorry, I got distracted.
If your wikistalking charge was primarily directed at JJB, my name did not belong in it.
"I see you as..." At various times you've "seen" me as anti-gay (which if you knew me offline you'd understand just why that one pissed me off), anti-porn (Again, nonsense. And I've got the hotel bill television charges to prove it) and a member of a cabal (I think I've responded adequetely to that bit of bullpoop sufficiently, both here and where you made the accusation.) So your virtual eyesight isn't very good. You might want to consult a virtual ophthalmologist.
I feel bad for poor Margaret. O Fenian's last sentence says a member of her family complained that she was still alive. I sure hope she heard of it and cut that guy out of her will.
Sorry, got distracted again.
About COI. I'll say it again, if you think our content differences have ANYTHING to do with COI, you don't know what COI is. Which might explain why you violate the rules about it so promiscuously, ubiquitously and darn-near universally. Please read the effing WP:COI page.
About your occasional "I'll appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've done it before" trope: Please do. Nothing kills a bad product better than good advertising. Please call their attention to your edit history and mine. Pretty please. With sugar and a maraschino cherry on top. If you do it 100 times, I'll find it notable. More than 110 times, I'll find it supernotable. More than 120 times, superdupernotable.
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Longevity and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I was saddened to see you accuse me for a second time of WP:OWN violation at List of Fictional Penguins and in case you were curious, yes I have noticed your negative personal comments although you needn't be concerned that I took them seriously. Obviously you feel very strongly about this issue and I can tell you that after having spent many many hours repairing these articles I also have strong opinions. Despite this I do not wish to engage in an edit war with you. I see that you have now added the character Mumble the Penguin to the list for a third time. You have also added Tennessee Tuxedo, another fictional penguin character. I assume you are acting in good faith, however the continued addition of these characters in the middle of an ongoing discussion (or two) is counterproductive to building consensus on this issue. I will not revert your most recent edits because I see that you are trying to properly demonstrate notability, however I hasten to mention that the current references do not meet the burden of proof for notability. If these references are not improved then the entries will most likely be removed.
Both the Mumble and Tennessee Tuxedo entries are now supported by references that do not cover the penguin characters in a significant manner. The reference you use for Mumble doesn't even mention him and the reference for Tennessee Tuxedo is an article about his animator and it only mentions him once. Please also note that notability is not inherited and thus an article about the notable film "happy feet" that discursively covers Mumble only in relation to the film is insufficient to demonstrate the notability of the character as anything but an element of the film. I wrote up a new post here using Mumble the Penguin as an example in order to have something to use as an example for later editors that run into the same issue. Again keep in mind that I am absolutely not interested in excluding Mumble from the list however I am interested in making sure that certain rules be followed in order to add content to articles that otherwise slip into useless directories. Even articles as seemingly insignificant as this one reflect on Wikipedia's ability to be treated as a serious source for legitimate encyclopedic information. A list of every fictional work in which the word "penguin" appears is certainly not appropriate. Whether of not a sourced list of notable fictional penguin characters is appropriate is debatable but if by consensus it is deemed to be then I think it is only appropriate that we follow the editorial rules when adding to it. -Thibbs (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution, still working on mine of course. ArbCom will like it if you use specific fact headings to clarify the links without anyone else tapping you besides me. The tongue-in-cheek language is fine by me but needs headings that describe the facts alleged, for disambiguation. Shalom. JJB 04:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Gerontology Research Group and Guinness World Records
Greetings,
To clarify: the GRG is the #1 source for the Guinness World Records "oldest people" titleholders. Maud Farris-Luse came from the GRG. Guinness at the time had nominated Amy Hulmes, 113, of the UK when the GRG sent in the case.
It's also possible for cases to be sent in directly to Guinness World Records. But even when that happens (such as Maria Capovilla), the family told me they first saw an article in the news about the GRG and Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan in May 2004. It took them a year+ to find the documents necessary for acceptance.
Remember, notability is established by the existence of outside sources, not whether the article has them right now. If an article appears to be borderline, it should be tagged first, requesting sources be added. Usually, a courtesy of one month is given to the article creator. If after a month, the article is still unsourced, then it's nominated for deletion.
JJBulten has not playing by the rules.
1. He mass-nominated a lot of articles on December 5, using the same wording each time.
2. He votes for his own nomination (again against policy).
3. He self-references his own "policies" even when they haven't been approved by others and are little more than him changing things on a "deletion outcomes" or project page.
I'm not going to lie, there's no need for hundreds of articles on every supercentenarian. However, JJ has argued that even if notability is established by outside sources, these people shouldn't have a biography if their name is on a list.
This is against Wiki policy (problem #4). It's also against common sense: we don't say we can't have articles on Supreme Court justices because they are on a list of supreme court justices. Biography is needed to make these people "human", not just statistics.
Now, a few concerns about your comments:
Yes, JJBulten brought all these AFD's to your attention. You didn't just "discover" these here. As usual, JJ plays dirty, and this is another example. He also makes a list of "friends" and tries to bully/intimidate new or young editors (for example, he suggested that Brendanology wasn't a good editor because he was only 15). So I see your being there more a product of JJ than you yourself.
The GRG is listed in Guinness World Records 2011 as the source of their "top ten" oldest persons list.
The GRG has deferred to Guinness for the World's Oldest Person title, but remember Guinness only tracks first-place records. It is therefore necessary to use the GRG to determine who is second-oldest, third-oldest, et cetera. And that could be sourced to GWR 2011. Just buy one today, and see for yourself.
Also, self-published sources are admissable if the person is an "expert" and the material is non-controversial.
I agree that articles need more than "just" a www.recordholders.org reference, a WOP reference, etc...but it could be useful for names on a list.
www.recordholders.org is a German Guinness records club (Club Saxonia). Louis is a content provider, not a publisher.
I will consider what you have written above. Please consider what I will write below.
You can see every interaction I have ever had with JJB, by looking on-wiki. We've never communicated in any other way. He has NEVER brought an AfD to my attention, except to the extent that he has brought them to everyone's attention with his very constructive table of articles and outcomes.
I am not part of any cabal. (I'm also not anti-porn or anti-gay.)
I have no conflict of interest. I avoid articles where I might have one. I have no conflict of interest with you. I have no off-wiki interest that you have any connection to. Please re-read WP:COI.
One's credibility can be damaged when one makes accusations that have no basis in reality. Especially one's credibility in the eyes of the falsely accused.
Never trust a person who cannot demonstrate a sense of humor.
The only absolutely accurate indicia of adulthood are the ability to disagree without being disagreeable and the ability to take matters seriously without taking ones self seriously.
Just chiming in here...the Wikipolicy of treating lack of originality as if it were a positive thing is something I am cordially hostile to.Original research should be preferred to second-hand (or worse) gleanings.I gather that those who claim Rejuvenation Research (whose renaming by its current editor I deplore) is not reliable are questioning the professional reputation of Mary Ann Liebert Inc.,its publisher.But to claim that hearsay is the only admissible evidence in the Court of Wikipedia is just repulsive.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I don't like the rules, I work to change them, or switch my energies to some project whose rules I find more amenable. It would be the height of hubris for me to take a third path, that of ignoring or derogating the importance of the rules in favor of what I believe to make more sense.
If the rules don't suit, please do not ignore them. Please work to change them. By consensus. That would be done at the policy's project page, not individual, article-by-article. We don't change (or disregard) the rules, we work within them. The approach you expound, that so derogates current WP policy --- "the Wikipolicy of treating lack of originality as if it were a positive thing is something I am cordially hostile to. Original research should be preferred to second-hand (or worse) gleanings..." --- is profoundly misguided. Experts can contribute here. But if experts come to this collaborative effort viewing, and denominating, the rules as things to abhor, ignore, and deplore, they can expect to stretch the assumption of good faith required for collaboration up to, and sometimes beyond, its breaking point. David in DC (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Epstein: "[T]he Wikipolicy of treating lack of originality as if it were a positive thing is something I am cordially hostile to."
The more I reflect on this, the more reprehensible it seems. What utter arrogance.
I don't like the rules. But, since you misguided folks somehow have a wider audience than I normally get, I want my information included in your project, whose rules I find "repulsive". [Query: where's the cordiality in the descriptor "repulsive"?] So I'll violate the rules and disrupt the project. There, there, it'll all be for the best. Surely, you understand that expertise is more important than consensus.
Expertise is definitely more important than consensus.And where longevity verification is concerned,my correspondent network,the Gerontology Research Group,and other allies represent the highest standard of expertise in the world while the Wikipedia rule enforcement process glorifies consensus.And claiming we are unreliable while totally unable to find anyone more reliable personifies "utter arrogance".--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments; this is a subject I'm mildly interested in, and I could tell before this went to arbitration that there were serious problems. You and Itsmejudith seem to be the most level-headed people involved in this topic now, so you definitely deserve some commendation for your role. I figured that the subject area could use a fresh voice, and I could tell from the beginning that it would require someone experienced with separating arguments from ranting; being a history major, that's much of what my work consists of. I'm not one to get intimidated, and I can handle people's venting, so I keep my talkpage open; otherwise, I doubt I'd have gotten that rather informative (in all seriousness) message from Ryoung122. It's nice to know that I've been helpful, and once this case finishes I might start doing some content work on longevity. Thanks again for your comments, and keep up the good work!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A cabal is a number of people greater than two together in some close design, usually to promote their private views and interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue. Cabals are sometimes secret societies composed of a few designing persons, and at other times are manifestations of emergent behavior in society or governance on the part of a community of persons who have well established public affiliation or kinship. The term can also be used to refer to the designs of such persons or to the practical consequences of their emergent behavior, and also holds a general meaning of intrigue and conspiracy. Its usage carries strong connotations of shadowy corners, back rooms and insidious influence; a cabal is more evil and selective than, say, a faction, which is simply selfish; because of this negative connotation, few organizations use the term to refer to themselves or their internal subdivisions. Amongst the exceptions is Discordianism, in which the term is used to refer to an identifiable group within the Discordian religion" --- lede graf of Cabal entry on en.wikipedia.
But this cabalist thing is way beyond tolerable. Read the effing definition. Note the words intrigue, secret, conspiricy, back rooms, insidious influence, and evil.
Honest to goodness, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong alone. Reading the WOP proposed deletion list and weighing in on the AfD's listed there doth not a conspiracy make. I agree with JJB more often than I disagree, but if you compare our edits, you'll see disagreement occasionally. You'll also see me try to rescue a couple of articles --- succeeding twice and failing once. Theirs, Farris-Muse, and one of the Japanese centenarians. I'm not providing diffs here, and probably misrendering some names, because I'm not going to footnote my own effing rant.
I am part of no cabal and I am no one's #2 (except maybe my wife, if I know what's good for me.) <------- Assistance for the humor-impaired: The parenthetical is what's called a joke. It plays on the comedictrope of matriarchy.
Although many at this particular AfD have questioned the nomination, the spotlight you put on the article improved it, with much credit given to your own work, from this to this. At the end of the day this is a major improvement, so thank you. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots04:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second the kudos to you, David in DC. It's particularly impressive to change courses and be flexible based on new information. I'd award you a barnstar but it wouldn't be big enough to fit on your page. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Update: figured out how to fit it: --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Rescue Barnstar
I, Tomwsulcer, award David in DC this rescue barnstar for saving an article through flexibility and smarts. You have a fan from New Jersey! Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good Heart Barnstar
The Good Heart Barnstar
THANK YOU SO MUCH for helping me with Scooter Braun. I really, really appreciate when people cross-check what I have written. And you are doing just that. When I started to re-vamp that article it was nothing more than a sentence commenting on the fact that he was Jewish and then that quick quick blurb about him being arrested. In other words, a complete mess :) I have kind of run into a wall as it were in finding sources. Theres only like 2 substantial articles out there on him. Anyway I'm rambling. Thank you again for the help! You are truly a blessing to the Wikipedia community! Bped1985 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cabalist
Saying you are hurt by the comments is 'off-wiki' and irrelevant. Not that many people actually care about whether or not you are hurt by the cabalism accusations, you know. That's the harsh reality.
You continue attempting to destroy supercentenarian-related articles, just like BrownHairedGirl did to List of Belgian supercentenarians. Despite your claims of well-meaning, it is clear from edits on pages like this that you do NOT mean well for those articles, seeing non-existent WP:MOSBOLD violations.
Thank you for sharing your point of view. In my opinion, the fact that I am hurt by a false statement about me is relevant to WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a host of other rules ArbCom will be opining upon at some point in the future. Not everyone is as equananimous about incivility as our colleague BNL. (The welcome at the top of his talk page is exemplary --- a sight to behold.) I aspire to his level of equanimity, but I have not achieved it. So if I aver, on-wiki, that a false attack hurts my feelings, and that its near-ubiquitous reiteration rubs salt in the open wound, I'm hard-pressed to understand your claim of off-wiki irrelevancy.
The fact that the cabalist charge is 100% false is, I grant, a greater violation of our norms, guidelines and policies than hurting my feelings. But hurting my feelings by reiterating a calumny is not irrelevant. And your denomination of it as "off-wiki" truly mystifies me. Where, pray tell, am I being lied about? On-wiki. Where am I complaining of it? On-wiki. I'm left dumbstruck.
The claim that I'm a member of a cabal whose purpose is detrimental to our shared collaborative project is, as I've said, of far greater moment. It's a lie. WP:BLP applies to me every bit as much as it applies to the subjects of our articles. (That's why I collapsed the talk page entries where our colleague RY called me a homophobe.) A cabal meets in secret, for nefarious purposes. It's evil. Or at least that's what it says here. I am a participant in no cabal. I read the proposed articles for deletion listed in the chart on the WOP talk page, and I participate. I'm a member of the WikiProject and hope some day it functions as a WikiProject should. The chart on the talk page has led me (and other editors) to rescue several centenarian articles. It's led to consensus decisions to delete others. That's how the system is supposed to work.
You're completely wrong about MOS:BOLD editing, too. You must be confusing me with someone else. I have MOS:FLAG concerns, but I made one edit along those lines, was reverted by a tender of your WP:WALLEDGARDEN, and concluded I had better things to do with my volunteer time than argue about flags. But your carelessness with the accusation is symptomatic. I've raised the MOS:FLAG issue with a single edit, and backed off after being reverted. I think I'm right, but categorization by nationality, country of origin, country of birth, Japanese prefecture, Swiss canton, profession, centenarian-ness, super-centenarian-ness, super-duper-centenarian-ness, and any other categorization scheme one might devise to accrete all of this unsourced hobbyist, stub-cruft into wikipedia so many places that it will live on eternally, in "mirrors" if not on wikipedia, will be dealt with in the fullness of time. I don't feel compelled to press the issue now.
About being completely wrong on the MOS thing: I'll tell you directly what I've told our mutual friend LongevityDude, directly. In my opinion, your zeal occasionally overmatches your judgment. Your "style" sometimes undermines the substance of what you say. This is regrettable. Especially when you're right.
Your advice to behave is, of course, always good counsel. I'm mildly dismayed that you feel the need to request it, rather than suggest it, but again, so be it. I will note for the record, however, that Austin Powers says "Behave!" with substantially more panache. David in DC (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I confused the WP:MOSBOLD issue, the one I was talking about was WP:MOSFLAG, as you rightly pointed out.
And by the way, as far as Wikipedia alone is concerned, LongevityDude is NOT my "mutual friend"... please get that clear. → Brendan12:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brendanology, I would advise you to read what I've written here, specifically the two indented paragraphs, and seriously think about it. All you're doing is making yourself look irrational, which does nothing to help your already logically flawed arguments. Above all, stop telling people how to behave; you aren't exactly coming from a position of valor on this issue. As for this MOSFLAG issue; if BrownHairedGirl doesn't start an RfC in a few days, I'll do it myself if it comes to that. She and David in DC are right on this issue, and I'm not sure why we'll have to drag it out if it's a foregone conclusion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has something to do with learning to toss my cookies. But in the meantime, I'm posting from this IP address exclusively. I'll give notice when I learn to purge the offending virtual pastry. 68.228.14.101 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can also see that the Gerontology Research Group and Guinness World Records continue to be cited as notable sources in mainstream citations.
It's amazing to me how Wikipedia is like sausage-making: no one would want to see the process.
Everyone has their own little issues. Some are against flags. Some are against extreme old age as notable. Some are against bolding, some are against wiki-links for years of birth and death.
Some believe that Noah lived to 950, and is thus oppposed to secular mainstream scientific consensus that such ages are mythical (not to mention the idea that the entire Earth flooded).
To me, the biggest current issues are false charges. I'll agree to drop the "cabalist" accusation. What I meant by that is that certain editors e-mail other editors privately to recruit them for an AFD. The editors that show up on an AFD are often not random, unbiased persons.
By the way, JJBulten was "concluding" ArbCom discussions. Since when did a party to a dispute get to be the judge too? Who is calling out the misbehavior of JJB?
Too often, as in a football game, referees respond to the "response", not the initial provocation.
I am taking a wiki-break. I don't agree with a lot of your editing, and most of all with your mixing issues, but I realize that you can sometimes be reasonable. And for that I'm willing to work with trying to tone down the current situation.Ryoung12200:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it incredulous that the Gerontology Research Group is used as a reliable source by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, etc., yet you continue to violate Wiki policy by mislabelling the GRG as "unreliable" and using put-down terms such as "data dump."
Seriously, you are in error and in violation of Wiki policy and I will open a discussion with the Wikimedia Foundation if this continues.Ryoung12218:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, I think the biggest problem here is one of misunderstanding terms. The word "reliable", as defined in a standard dictionary, may well apply to the raw data compiled by the Gerontology Research Group and hosted online at grg.org. I take no stand on its reliability, in the generic sense of that word. What I'm talking about is the phrase "reliable source", as that term is defined in the rules which govern wikipedia.
Seriously, I beseech thee, "...open a discussion with the Wikimedia Foundation if this continues." But please, I beg of you, stop threatening to do so. The action, by your logic, is almost mandatory. Over time, your catalog of my evil-doing seems comprehensive and voluminous. If I'm the editor you describe, you must inform the authorities. But the repeated threat, without action, treads fairly close to the "no legal threats" rule. It also grow tedious. In some ears, it sounds like bullying. In others, just pathetic.
It also seriously undermines all of the arguments you've made in the normal course of dispute resolution. If those arguments are valid, they will carry the day in any resolution. No appeal to the Foundation will be needed. If, perchance, your arguments do not carry the day, after you've exhausted your routinely available remedies and appeals, you can always make an appeal to the Foundation thereafter, explaining why the result reached in the ordinary course of dispute resolution is so divergent from the proper result that the Foundation must act.
Seriously, a "raw data dump" is a data set before it's been analyzed, synthesized, and interpreted. On en.wikipedia, you can't go to this data set, and then analyze, synthesize and report your findings. It violates WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and the guidance of WP:TERTIARY. Somebody has to take that secondary step and some reliable source, as the term is defined here on en.wikipedia, must publish it.
Seriously, aren't you on wikibreak?
Seriously, I find it incredible that you still do not know the difference between "incredible" and "incredulous." One might say I'm incredulous about it. At least one might say so if one had mastered the difference. David in DC (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, Let me put it this way. People send cases (apply) to the GRG list. We currently have over 1600 cases accepted and more than 600 pending. Pending means someone sent us something on a case but we either do not have enough evidence to accept as validated, or the case has not yet been processed.
The data being sent is the "raw" data. The data being displayed on the GRG lists is not raw data; it is processed data. Not anyone can add it. Right now, Dr. Coles is the only person on the GRG website that actually adds data. I am the top advisor as to what to add next.
You might be able to expedite this expeditiously. As I describe here, it appears Cam46136 inadvertently deleted a lot of comments from WT:WOP by accidentally editing from an old version. I identify the solution as being to restore the version just before Cam46136's, readd Cam46136's one paragraph to that version, and discount your interim changes as already present in the old version. If this makes sense, it's a two-minute repair of an unconscious WP:TALKO violation, and I'd appreciate it if you could carry it out, as I am not editing the page. (No comment, of course, as to how often I've made such repairs myself, and I don't mean Itsmejudith's edit conflict today either.) Thanks! JJB 01:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm as reluctant as you to undertake fixing this error. Especially after discovering that more than IMJ's post has been disappeared. Some evidence of behavior at the crux of the ArbCom case has also been disappeared. So I've made this request on the workshop talk page. David in DC (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typing in ALL CAPS
"Typing in all capital letters on the Internet is considered rude because it is difficult to read and comes across as very aggressive (LIKE SHOUTING!)"[2]
"Online TYPING IN ALL CAPS is considered shouting and is frowned on in most cases."[4]
All caps: "With the advent of the internet, all caps became closely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behaviour. As a result, netiquette generally discourages the use of all caps when posting messages online. However, in cases where it is not possible to bold text, all caps can be used as an alternative to bolding."
post am essay like this which castigates some other editor for posting "reams" of material, as this essay does, please find the nearest large trout and use it in the manner in which G-d intended it to be used. David in DC (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ryoung122 (talk·contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any Wikipedia process related to articles about longevity (broadly interpreted);
WikiProject World's Oldest People is urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Wikipedia policies and community norms;
Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.
AGK's "close as not actionable" nevertheless includes an important admonition. It would be good if it were heeded.
I concur that this request is not immediately actionable because Ryoung's comment was not unquestionably related to Longevity (from which he is topic-banned). But it is clear why the filing party could argue that the comment did constitute a topic-ban violation, and I would accordingly caution Ryoung against attempting to evade his topic-ban by means of a comment on an unrelated venue (such as his talk page). Editors who are topic-banned often find that leniency is rarely showed by administrators in complaints about ban evasion, and Ryoung must be especially careful that he is never participating in a discussion relating to longevity. That aside, this complaint is not actionable, and so I will with this edit close this thread. AGK [•] 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Glad it was informative. Re. "Clarification" - nah; no problem at all! Re. "Start a section" - mmm, well, I'll see what happens there, for now. Unlike some others, I think a poll would be a very bad idea (that link is oh-so-relevant), and I don't mind at all that that page is getting long; discussion is a Good ThingTM. Thanks again, for taking the trouble to contribute to the debate; your thoughtful opinions and open-mindedness are exactly what we need. Chzz ► 00:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boldest people
Not surprisingly, User:Brendanology reverted your edit to Oldest people, where you had removed some bolding citing WP:MOS, without bothering to justify it in an edit summary. I'm a little more optimistic of a peaceful resolution by starting here. I looked through the MOS but didn't see any discussion of bolding to support your edit. Can you tell me where to look there? Personally, I think the bolding is good to help readers identify the living supercentenarians if their browser (or eyes, or text reader) is not able to properly render the highlighting. My understanding is that similar supplementation is done in other tables. Matchups15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. MOS:BOLD. Most especially "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases:" None of the bullets fit. See also "Contraindications" in the same section. David in DC (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overcaution. The number of contributing editors was so short I notified everyone who wasn't a bot. I apologize if I cluttered up your page unnecessarily. David in DC (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to go on record that your AfD for this article was perfectly valid and appropriate (don't be chastened). If not for your AfD there would be a super crappy article (instead of a passably crappy one - it still needs work). Glad you liked my reference to paper based sources! --Quartermaster (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've responded further on your talk page. Check out the second quote, above, under "Great quotations" for an aphorism that covers what happened when I tagged this article that had been begging for sources for years. Creating the situation on purpose is disruptive and pointy. But while reviewing longevity articles, I saw the 2007 notice and genuinely couldn't find sources. The lack of sources seemed so clear to me that I put up a Prod notice and subsequent AfD. Then editors interested in entertainment solved the problem, ala Dr. Johnson. I was glad of the solution. I'm getting a rep for being a deletionist and I'm not. Just a believer that articles that exist for years without any sources impair the credibility of this whole grand, glorious, collaborative project. David in DC (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cringe factor and AfD and stuff (AfD = Article for Deletion ... I'm trying to promote clear communication)
Hey, one of my favorite experiences has to do with a a Proposed Deletion (PROD) of one of my personally favourite musical groups, Tupelo Chainsex. I had to actually apply wikipedia notability rules/guidelines/rumours/stuff to keep it around. Taught me a lot about the whole idea of wikipedia. It's not a contest, it's a process. Be bold. Don't cringe. Think. Sometimes you're right. Sometimes you're wrong. And who knows which is which? We all do our best in good faith. When you stimulate the processes you're improving the encyclopaedia. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Cow. Not proof, but a genuinely timely anecdote about the benefit of PC. I had no idea. The edit simply made my crap detector tingle. It spoke of the future, with no source and no edit summary. Thanks for letting me know.
I'm about to get slapped for, as Resident Anthropoligist, eating "popcorn, non, nom, nom". I filed an ANI about Nick, and was told to go to AE. I took the advice, but I think I thereby put myself on a conveyor belt toward a buzzsaw. It seems the uninvolved senior editors, especially of the RS-savvy flavor, don't have much interest in providing guidance. And my efforts to get Nick to curb the most egregious of his editing behavior, multiple reverts of anyone who's not an expert or their acolyte, are about to be viewed in a harsh light. RA is a very good editor. If he's mocking me, openly but with humor, I suspect its a harbinger. So thanks for the unexpected, serendipitous, and timely notification of something I did right. You rock! David in DC (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind. Thank you. I'm going "over the river and through the woods" for a few days tomorrow night. When I return, I'll take you up on this invitation. It's appreciated. David in DC (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the diffs you present at your RfE are your edits, not NickOrnstein's. The instructions state, "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it." If you need to provide a background, then include it in the text of your request. Generally speaking, you're not supposed to include your edits in the list of NickOrnstein's edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and a joke is not an olive branch. With me, it's more like a reflex. When I read the punchline to a joke, I usually cannot resist telling the joke. Sorta like Roger Rabbit with "Shave and a haircut ...." If it lightens someone's day, so much the better.
(1) I need to breathe. I need to eat. I need to drink. I need to sleep.
What someone else wants is not necessarily what I need.
A census data announcement, without more, even where the personal data is suppressed for 72 years, is about longevity. Among other things, it carries data about population growth, which informs editorial judgments about what lifespan is truly extraordinary. After less than a week of a topic ban, anyone who posts information about the release of census data, without disclaiming any connection to longevity, can be easily seen as testing the boundaries. It's why a closer of an AE case might feel it important to include in his closing:
"I concur that this request is not immediately actionable because Ryoung's comment was not unquestionably related to Longevity (from which he is topic-banned). But it is clear why the filing party could argue that the comment did constitute a topic-ban violation, and I would accordingly caution Ryoung against attempting to evade his topic-ban by means of a comment on an unrelated venue (such as his talk page). Editors who are topic-banned often find that leniency is rarely showed by administrators in complaints about ban evasion, and Ryoung must be especially careful that he is never participating in a discussion relating to longevity. That aside, this complaint is not actionable, and so I will with this edit close this thread. AGK [•] 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)"
You seem to have a problem admitting that you are sometimes WRONG. First off, if I'm not supposed to mention a word, why should I mention a word to indicate I'm not talking about that word? Second...There's a big difference between discussing Census 2010 and Census 1940. Figure it out.Ryoung12202:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you may have missed me quoting the Red Queen, "I sometimes think six impossible things before breakfast." Or maybe you've missed the times I've said "That's my take on it. Whaddya think. I have no corner on the wisdom market. Hell, sometimes I wonder if I even have a stall there"
Also, I apologize for taking 6 or seven tries at putting a simple link to this thread on your page. It clogged up your edit history. It was wrong.
I seem to notice your edit summaries & comment/even correct them; but I digress...
I had noticed your edit summary today about changing from BC-AD notation to the BCE-CE notation. You quoted WP:NPOV and also commented, "We're not all Christians, you know." Being curious, I went there to WP:NPOV, but for the life of me, I couldn't find anything related there. Naturally, as I dig deeper -- as always in my quest to find exactly what I'm looking for -- I noticed that this is the accurate find: Manual of Style (dates and numbers).
I noticed one bullet in the year numbering system section that stated, "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." I thought about reverting your edit, but looking at the 50,000 foot view, there was only two instances of BC vs BCE to deal with (so why should we quibble with this now, after-the-fact?). So I just am here on your own user page (only) to let you know about the better find & be aware for your future edits. Have a good weekend. Cheers, CalvinTy21:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a substantial reason. BC stands for Before Christ. AD stands for Anno Domini (In the year of Our Lord.) Dating anything BC or AD is dating from a Christian POV. A non-POV style exists quite specifically to avoid the Christian POV in dating. In my view, the guidance you're quoting is about 19 December 2001 vs. December 19, 2001. There, consistency should rule. But not between BC/AD and BCE/CE. In the latter case, BCE/CE is always preferable. It's non-denominational. It accords with any religion, or none at all. Dating according to Jesus' life is POV. Dating according to "The Year of Our Lord" is uber-POV. Even if one concedes the existence of a historical Jesus (which I readily concede), Christ means Messiah. I don't concede that. And "Our Lord" excludes me, a bunch of athiests, and Muslims, Taoists, Zoroastrians and Wiccans galore, just to name a few. David in DC (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CT, You Rock! Check this out. This is exactly the way collaborative editing is supposed to work. I'll be looking for sources. But in the meantime, the issue is out on the table, on talk pages, for editors to work out a new consensus (or not). David in DC (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you should get the credit for a good discussion you initiated at the MOS (dates and numbers) talk page. I fully understand your point of view, and I certainly can relate. I am in the camp where I acknowledge both sides, and see each side's point of view, but I do not really have a thought of to a potential solution. I mean, no matter how we want to avoid it, but using "2011" in our current Gregorian calendar is rooted from Christianity. For those who live in USA, most of our monetary pieces have the words "In God We Trust" on it. Do we change that -- some would say "yes, definitely, there is no place for it in a melting pot country such as USA", while others would say "that phrase is used in a historical sense" quoting our founding fathers -- so that's one other example where religion is intertwined into our society even though many people do not share the same religion views. I am a Star Trek fan (and love science & astronomy) -- I wish we could change to a Stardate-like calendar, perhaps based on universal time, shortened more specifically to our solar system time, something to that effect. :-) That way, it does not offend any denomination or religion as we all would be on "Earth time". I guess I just offered up a solution, LOL, but alas, it'd take tremendous change and still manage to get heavy resistance from many sides. Like, "how and when do we convert from Gregorian calendar to this new Earth calendar??" Bleh. Nice heavy dose of thoughts on an early Monday morning. Cheers, CalvinTy11:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for solving this by analogy to Star Trek. In Kirk's century, they went where no man had gone before. In Picard, Sisko and Janeway's century, they went where no one had gone before. But then we'd also be stuck with the thorny issue that, in both centuries, they boldly split infinitives where no infinitives had been splat before. I'd also like to see "In God We Trust" stricken from US coins. But I'd settle for amendment: "In God We Trust - All Others Pay Cash" I'm sure the coinage problem will be solved when the whole galaxy adopts Quadloos as the coin of the realm. :)
I saw that the 110 club threads with our usernames mysteriously vanished some time ago; what they didn't seem to realize is that Google has a cached version of everything. I dunno, I'm actually enjoying reading about what a bad person I am. I had to laugh when someone questioned how we were living with ourselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I strive for your level of equanimity. The fact that some of the nonsense is so far over-the-top helps.
The thing that really rankles me most is the indoctrination of children, by adults, into a mindset that leaves no room for compromise and no respect for the rules of a collaborative project.
I must concede that, as far as equanimity goes, my reach still exceeds my grasp. But I'll keep trying. Thanks for the example you set with your unflappable calm and sense of perspective. At different times, I've had occasion to tell LongevityDude and Nick that I fear their zeal sometimes outstrips their judgment. With the flags, I fear mine did. We're right, but I moved precipitously. I think I was well within policy, but by moving quickly I took one step forward that led to two steps back, at least in the short run.
Still, i'm having no problem living with myself. My 13-year-old has some trouble living with myself but, developmentally, that's as it should be. :) David in DC (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got a little impetuous on the flag issue myself, so you're not alone. Things should start to calm down a bit once we can get MOSFLAG clarified once and for all. It's going the right direction, it's just a matter of when. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BNL, regarding The 110 Club forum, just to fill you in as you appear to be behind in the news, I am an administrator over there. I gave a lengthy reply here on 5 March 2011 about The 110 Club (actually, the original diff would be this). To sum up here, for a very long time, The 110 Club was far too transparent for several threads, including predictions of the current living supercentenarians, fellow members misbehaving on the forum, as well as having discussions/opinions about other people that several people including myself was very uncomfortable with. The founder of the forum agreed, and the changes took effect in the middle of that RfE against Nick causing some admins here to signal "Red Alert!" when it was a matter of unfortunate timing. I even pointed out that Google cache would still show old threads but that the goal is to give respect to living supercentenarians as well as other living people, including you two here (BNL and DinDC). Please feel free to let me know if there are any old threads that show up in Google Cache that you feel are disrepecting you, then I will move them to the private section of the forum. Usually, Google Cache -- after a period of time -- cannot access those private threads and no longer display the cache as well. Just letting you know, BNL. Cheers, CalvinTy14:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for repeating your explanation, CT. You seem to be less reviled than I am. Do you have any thoughts about this part of my posting up above: "The thing that really rankles me most is the indoctrination of children, by adults, into a mindset that leaves no room for compromise and no respect for the rules of a collaborative project."? Can you think of anything that might be done about it? If my WP:FLAGBIO proposal is accepted, as seems likely, I fear efforts to bring the longevity pages into compliance will lead to additional kerfuffles. (I just love that word. It's not exactly onamatapoetic, but it does sound like what it means.) Do you think you might be able to successfully counsel outraged editors about following the rules? Would you be inclined to? David in DC (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I noticed your love for the word kerfuffles. I quickly saw your concern above and as well as at Amatulic's talk page. I noticed that Nick has appeared to mind his own business editing other parts of the articles while you have worked on clean-ups (footnotes, citations, etc). I'm trying to give him and other editors credit in understanding that there is a growing consensus for a change regarding flag icons. I personally am more convinced that sortable tables would be a key tool for longevity lists (without flag icons), thanks to Andrwsc's suggestion to you here. I may even suggest to restore the column of "place of birth", because, in longevity, it's important to note where the living people hail from, considering the likelihood of genetics being involved. Actors such as Bruce Willis are not affected by longevity (he still has quite long way to go, haha, though actress Betty White is getting up there). So, yes, correct, Bruce Willis being "born in Germany" has no bearing on "who" he is, but that is not applicable here. While Dina Manfredini, age 114, has lived in Iowa for many years, but she has strong Italian roots as she was born there. Right now, that information is in a "tiny footnote". It does not truly show that she is one of many Italian-born supercentenarians on the current living list right now. Italy has 15 supercentenarians living on the list, but really has 16 because of Dina Manfredini. A sortable list would allow a reader to see how many people from each country are showing up.
Regarding what I can do to counsel others, the 110 Club is still a public forum and members are free to express their opinions (but telling them to discuss any opinions about living people in a private section) so I'm not sure what I can really do to counsel them. If it's about a discussion here, I try to provide my train of thought here, not over there. That way, I can use various diffs to show policies, guidelines, discussions, and so forth. Plus, if editors here misbehave, I am out of my element as admins here can take action or other editors can make a RfE. What would you suggest I can do? Cheers,CalvinTy15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you counsel anyone you think might heed your advice about potential consequences for misbehavior and about trying to change rules rather than blithely (and sometimes quite loudly and proudly) flouting them. Off-wiki, I've always found that such counsel is best delivered privately, one-on-one. Indeed, one of my favorite bits of managerial advice is "Praise publicly, criticize privately." David in DC (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Calvin; I don't actually mind it, it's no big deal. I've got a YouTube account as well under a different name, and I've been called far worse things there. It just goes with the territory of being on the Internet. Don't worry. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 110 Club was founded by two 18-year-olds in 2007. Your accusations of "indoctrinating children" is NOT assuming good faith. It was the KIDS that came up with FLAG ICONS on longevity articles, not the adults. It was the KIDS that created the longevity lists on Wikipedia, the adults were making lists outside Wikipedia. It's not just that you see the glass half-empty; you think the glass is upside down when you are standing on your head. Get some FACTS before making defamatory innuendos.Ryoung12222:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As always, RY, thanks for sharing. You're sort of the gift that keeps on giving.
BTW, are you supposed to be editing pages with discussion of longevity-related topics? Because this is a page, and you are editing it with reference to longevity topics.
Just in case you aren't supposed to be doing that, but feel compelled to watch my talk page, and respond, it might be safer for you to e-mail me, as you once did on the topic of Paul Baltes. The email function on my talk page is enabled. If for some reason that doesn't work, I'll be happy to send you an e-mail, so you've got my address. I've still got yours. You have but to ask.
Also, as far as English style and usage go, I think one "makes" insinuations, but I don't think one "makes" innuendos. Besides, innuendos are subtle and nuanced, capable of more than one interpretation, but insinuating the more (or the most) negative one. In contrast, I've written my opinion quite clearly, free of insinuation or innuendo
The thing that really rankles me most is the indoctrination of children, by adults, into a mindset that leaves no room for compromise and no respect for the rules of a collaborative project.
Nope. No subtlety, nuance, insinuation or innuendo there. I may be factually wrong, but I don't think the opinion I've written on my talk page includes innuendo or insinuation. Nor does it identify any particular adults or children. Perhaps you've got a touch of Shoefitz syndrome. If so, I hope you're feeling better soon.
Wow. Just, wow. I've seen the plea for you to help coax that horrible DiDC character to tone done his casting of aspersions. Good luck with that. :) David in DC (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in some parallel universe, this would be encyclopedic
Thanks. I haven't dealt much w/Williamb. At least not that I recall. Good for Nick. He was trying to do the right thing there. An important reminder for me that good editor/bad editor is not a binary toggle switch. David in DC (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
I apologize for my delay in reacting to your note on my talk page about Ryoung122's topic ban. After a couple days of no further activity from Ryoung122, I thought it might be inappropriate to block, so I asked another admin for advice. In the meantime, you filed a WP:AE report, Ryoung122 has been blocked, case closed. All that was left for me to do is collapse his comment on your MOSICON proposal. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No harm, no foul. I'll go straight to AE next time, and no doubt be criticized for failing to try to work things out one-on-one first. David in DC (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, you should try to resolve issues one-on-one first but in this particular case, Ryoung122 has already been topic-banned by ArbCom. You would not have been criticized if you went straight to AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I understand your point. In my view, closing as non-actionable, with the closing language including exactly the remedy requested, causes some cognitive dissonance. But it's nothing I won't get over. I appreciate your taking the time and interest to counsel me about this. David in DC (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
??? What is wrong with the Holly Robinson Peete source? If you dont like it, did you venture to find one you do like? & if you are going to reject that one thing fine. But did you look as the other edits? Quotes around teh book title in the lead, moving the kids DOBS to the personal section, the info about her graduating? If thisis a collaborative effort, why do I constantly see admins reject and revert, but not AIDE by also researching to better the article? And what did you mean about CAPS lock? I dont have it on. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I hear your frustration and I'm sorry. I'll try to explain myself and hope you'll understand it's not a personal thing.
www.tastybrand.com is not a reliable source. By that I mean it doesn't comply with the rules found here. So any information you attribute to that site's Holly Robinson Peete page will be rejected.
The material in the 1st paragraph under the "Career" heading is attributed to no source at all. WP:BLP, the rules about biographies of living people are especially strict about sourcing.
WP:INHERIT says, in most imporant part, that notability is not inherited. So we include info about people's children, but not much of it, and not in the lead paragraph.
The All Caps thing was referring to this: "STOP DECLINING". Fairly or not, it's treated as shouting, and it discredits you.
Having explained all of that, let me alsoi say that it's important for me to follow WP:BITE, which I've obiously failed to do. Please read it, and please accep my apology for your feeling bitten.
I'd be happy to talk some more about all this, but my wife just yelled at me for the 3rd time for ignoring a hot dinner to finish writing this.
Please check out the references I've given and please keep at it. As I said, I'll be happy to help and regret how my actions have hurt your feelings.
Hello, Thank You for your help and reply. I definitely was and am frustrated. Many times my edits are reverted for the reason 'needs better source'. Yet all the admins dont help in getting a better source.
1) In the lead I wasnt including info on her children. I edited to italicise the book title as is standard.
2) I am saying take the children's info from the infobox and put in down below in the personal section.
3) Early Life: HRP has been out since 1969. Since then it was known and for 30yrs now it has been known that she graduated from Sarah Lawrence. Isn't this common knowledge now? Isn't it like public domain knowledge because everyone knows she is an alum? For example, on Madonna (entertainer)'s, there is no source for her haveing graduated from St Andrew & St Frederick's Elementary, nor from West Middle School. But since Madonna has been known since 1982-28 years now!-we know that she did graduate from those primary schools b/c that info was in her bio time and time again since she came out. Does that make sense? I mean it is common knowledge that Madonna graduated from those primary schools, just as it is common knowledge that Hilary graduated from Wellesley/Yale, and the Obamas from Harvard Law. On many sites her SL psych/french degree is part of her bio bc it was on her acting credentials and info about her on her various wrteups and tv shows in her 30yrs career. Tasty Brand is an interview she gave, why is it not allowed? On Hilary Clinton's page, her graduating from Wellesley College is sourced by her own speech ; so both ladies are giving out info on themselves: how are the 2 different? The speakers bureau vets it employees, so why is it too not allowed? They(ABP) have to make sure those who they are advertising for speaking in exchange for $ are in fact what they present themselves to be, or else those who hire ABP could sue for lying/false advertising.
4) Career: What I added isn't original research. She stated in interviews last fall promoting her new show that she was fresh out of college and got her first acting job. She repeated this on a rerun of The Talk that I saw. I didn't formulate it.
I was shouting when I wrote 'STOP DECLINING'. I feel the other editor should have looked and partially accepted some of the edits (moving her kids info from the infobox, italicising the book title) instead of the whole thing being rejected. & of course the editor has locked their talk page and discussion page so they can't be written to for help. How is that allowed? 69.140.66.37 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your link to the article "Blow job" is irrelevant to the use of the word "sucks", given the context in which you used it, as well as highly inappropriate.
If you make another inappropriate and irrelevant link to this kind of article, I am reporting YOU to ANI without further delay.
Your link is not constructive. It does not justify at all your link to the word "sucks" in your edit summary. I'm not sure many people would take well to offensive edits. → Brendan12:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your userbox on rotary telephones and realized that you are likely at least my age. If so, I think we're both in the right tail of Wikipedia's population age distribution. I'm also old enough to remember black and white television (with tubes, not transistors), "hi fi" monaural recordings, and tail fins on cars. I'll be 50 this year. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Articles needing additional references, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
there is a category that shows what pages need references
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of living supercentenarians
Hi there - you would appear to know more about the subject than me, so I hope you don't mind my approaching you rather than the IP address. The individual at the top of the list of "validated living supercentenarians" appears to have changed since last time I checked - from Besse Cooper to Maria Gomes Valentim. Is this individual verified? I've never seen her on the list until now and am very suspicious that she appears to have been so recently confirmed. Perhaps it is true, but it seems very strange that she's just popped to the top of the list...
The fact that this individual is not linked, makes me equally suspicious. Any ideas? Thanks for your input. Bobo.15:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Bobo192, yes, Maria Gomes Valentim has been confirmed by Guinness World Records as the new oldest living person here. The concern is understandable since this was a rare case of a newly validated case that actually made her the new World's Oldest Person. Cheers, CalvinTy15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBo: I can't add anything beyond CalvinTy's answer.
@Calvin: Man, I love that Snidely Whiplash template! :). (Update: Bummer, I just looked. The jaguar is nowhere near as funny a template as the prior Snidely Whiplash icon.)
I recently posted a concern on a longevity talk page about whether sources frankly labelled as not having been updated since 2007 or 2009 remain reliable. I've referenced the same concern in a couple of recent edit summaries. This example illustrates the reason I was concerned, at least as to ordinal rankings of living people. Ms. Valentime was surely alive when some of these sources were last updated. But she appears on none of them. So while the sources are accurate about what GRG knew in 2007 or 2009, they are not accurate in 2011. Why are they reliable sources for a wikipedia article? David in DC (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw someone, perhaps BNL, using the talk page stalker template, and I thought it was humorous. I hadn't seen the opportunity to use it yet until now. :-) When I first saw the page, it already talked about the jaguar -- oh, I see what you mean, yes, I saw that icon as well but Feezo decided to remove it.
I understand your concern about stale sources, although this case is actually not an example of that concern. Brazil was known for extreme longevity claims (115-125 years old) so legitimate claims did not come into the picture (perhaps because there wouldn't be any motivation to do so, considering several other older claims). Only after some of the longevity researchers found this case in an online 2010 article, they had to actually contact the family to collect proper documentation to validate this case. So Ms. Valentim was nowhere on anyone's radar back in 2009. Back to your concern, I try to find current online sources but GRG is using ancient technology and limited manpower so it can be a challenge. Though, sources do not have an expiration date, really. As long as we are not using those specific stale pages for CURRENT cases, I'm not sure what else can be done. Cheers, CalvinTy20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I try to find current online sources but GRG is using ancient technology and limited manpower so it can be a challenge." <--- To my admittedly biased eyes, this reads like a reason not to consider the GRG tables as reliable sources.
"As long as we are not using those specific stale pages for CURRENT cases, I'm not sure what else can be done." Ummm, how about not using sources with these sorts of flaws, even if it means pruning back longevity articles to those that meet wikipedia's standards. I still fail to see why it's important for these articles to be on wikipedia, other than dogged persistence by enthusiasts interested in disseminating the truth and dismayed at their inability to draw sufficient numbers of eyeballs to their GRG, OHB, Oldest in Britain, WOP Yahoo group, etc pages. I can see why they would want to use wikipedia as a web-hosting service. I can't see why the wikipedia community should abide their efforts.
I clearly haven't attracted a consensus for my take on this, so I'm trying to limit my longevity work to helping make the darned articles comply, at least, with the policies and guidelines about style and sourcing. And keeping an eye out for violations of WP:BLP, which is one of my biggest areas of interest.
I'm writing all of this here, rather than on the longevity talk pages, because there's nothing constructive about provocatively beating a dead horse just for provocation's sake. I concede that the horse is dead. Maybe some day, consensus will change. That's my hope on CE/BCE, too. But, for now, I'm content to vent on my talk page only. As always, thanks for the congenial adulthood you bring to potentially contentious matters. David in DC (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edited David in DC's post above with use of numbers for my reply now)
To my admittedly biased eyes, as long as the content being sought is present in that source, it does not have to be inside a flashy website or updated more frequently. :-) I don't know if my example will boost my point or not, heh, but I guess it's akin to having a law book on a home office library from, say, 1961, that seems to have a particular section (that you want to cite) that is not discussed in later editions of the same law book. You are still allowed to cite a book from 1920 (not appearing online anywhere) as long as you provide the correct citation. So maybe GRG is like "an online book" that is not frequently updated but some content from 2007 or 2002 or whenever is still valid until OTHER reliable sources say that content is no longer true.
Honestly, I don't think many, if any, longevity editors have that mentality that "since GRG cannot update their stuff on a timely basis to my liking, I will use Wikipedia instead". Rather, I think since they are also researchers of various degree, they see Wikipedia as a real-time tool to update validated or potential cases on a daily basis. It's fair to say that reporters/media do turn to Wikipedia for the "breadth of information" so it's essential that the media has not only current data, but also historical data (i.e. so they can see that a claim to age of 117 is extremely unlikely). I think your perception of web-hosting service stems from the fact that most of us are essentially relying on ONE "international body of longevity research" (GRG; GWR do not host any lists that I am aware of). If there were several websites hosting various longevity lists, some with different validated cases, then we would have Wikipedia articles that would be a commingling of all data for a true real-time list for all to use. Understandably, but unfortunately, blogs or owned websites are not reliable sources so that excludes many possible sources such as OHB (Louis Epstein, an expert), Oldest in Britain (one of GRG correspondents). This is one reason why I myself have not attempted to post longevity lists online because I knew that they were unlikely to be cited unless they were vetted and published by a third-party entity.
Yes, I have seen that your focus has been in the "compliance department", and as you said, WP:BLP appears to be an area of strong strength on your part. I find my strength to be more like a "reviewer" of what has been edited (or has been discussed), and that's where I tend to chime in. I am not that good when it comes to agendas as I multi-task all the time, so I don't have that mentality like "okay, today, I'm going to update List of Belgian supercentenarians". I see plenty of name-space articles that need improvement, but I find myself more attuned to discussions on how to improve them (rather than actually boldly editing them, oops).
I also appreciate that you do acknowledge that the consensus has not yet supported your minority views, but we all know that consensus can change over time. Just as in real life and online in other formats, one of my strengths is to get people to discuss their views in a congenial manner. From the beginning, I saw that you were willing and able to listen to different points of view -- I don't know the history of JJB, but from what I read, I think it appears to be his flaw in where he had a very staunch position that he consistently wouldn't budge in the eyes of the arbitrators (thus his 1-year total ban). I myself do wonder: if I was around in those several months, would I have been able to meditate JJB's views with other editors? Would I have been able to prevent the case from going to ArbCom - or it was unlikely because of the contrast in personalities of various editors? Just something I pondered about for a while, but it's not important nowadays. To quote you, Happy editing! CalvinTy16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It happened before. I filed this. I perceived a wheel war by cowardly editors hiding behind IP addresses, especially because two of the edits called me out by name, one calling me stupid. The closing admin saw no edit-warring at all but warned the one who called me stupid about WP:NPA. The wheel-warring continued, so I appealed for help from the closing admin, on his talk page. I got a rude surprise. As you can see, I was told that WP:FLAGBIO might not be binding and that I was the one who should refrain from edit-warring.
So I trod carefully this time, adding my voice to yours on the latest cowardly IP wheel-warrior's page, but refraining from doing what should have been done, in fear that User:Kuru might well discipline me for trying to bring the page back into compliance with the black letter guideline. I'm grateful that you had no such trepidation. I doubt we've seen the last of this. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Gomes Valentim, the new world’s verified oldest living person
Now we have had the interesting development of a new world’s oldest living person, Maria Gomes Valentim, of Brazil, being validated by the Guinness Book of Records. She is 114 years old having been born on July 9, 1896.
In researching her case, I wanted to retrieve some material that was originally on the South American supercentenarians entry. A page that you deleted!
It is now becoming patently obvious that your endless destructive behaviour is becoming a major impediment to genuine researchers interested in this subject.
Don’t you think it might be time to step back and reassess what you are doing? Cam46136 (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)cam46136[reply]
"Genuine researchers interested in [a] subject" who rely on wikipedia pages as anything other than a tertiary source misunderstand both the meaning of the words "genuine research" and the nature of wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If I caught my 13-year-old son trying to cite wikipedia on the subject of a research paper or thesis, he'd be in for a lecture about what wikipedia is and what it is not.
Genuine researchers work from primary and secondary sources. Some of these, on a given topic, can be found in the references section at the bottom of a wikipedia article, and sometimes in the external links.
That you're going looking for information about Sra. Gomes Valentim on a deleted wikipedia page, and that you proclaim this loudly and proudly, speaks volumes, if not necessarily to make the point you seem to be trying to make.
Please, I beseech thee, do genuine research and get it published in a scholarly article. Then a wikipedia editor can cite it in a wikipedia article. Doing it the other way around is the work of a hobbyist, generating AfD fodder. Don't you think it might be time to step back and reassess what you are doing? David in DC (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FLAGBIO issues
I think I'm giving myself RSI now removing the giant amount of flags from all the list articles. I've got most of the countries down (France, Italy, and the Netherlands are left) and some of the years down (still need to do 2002-2009). Now I understand why AWB exists, and hopefully when I get access that can make things faster. Manually doing it is taking me forever. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This week, our first multilingual featured article contest was announced. We are aiming to improve the articles on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights to featured or good status in English and other languages. Prizes for winners will be a gift package from the National Archives including a book of your choice or a tote bag, and other swag, plus, of course, a special barnstar.
August 6 backstage pass
Plans are in the works for a meetup and backstage pass event at the National Archives II facility in College Park, MD. There will be a regular social meetup, a discussion with Dominic about WP:NARA, a tour of the building by NARA staff, and then time for a scanathon and editathon in the research rooms and library until the building closes at 5 pm. Keep your schedules open!
The National Archives' Archival Recovery Team (ART) is a team of law enforcement agents and archivists who investigate NARA's lost and stolen documents. They have received media attention ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) and would like to request an article be written for the team, if Wikipedians deem it notable. It is hoped that making more information about the group available on Wikipedia will increase public awareness of the documents they are seeking to recover.
Ongoing
Today's Document challenge
The Today's Document challenge is an opportunity for Wikipedians to get their work related to National Archives holdings spotlighted on Archives.gov and the National Archives' tumblr. Each day the National Archives selects a document related to the day's date to showcase. The goal is to get articles related to the selected documents on the main page in ""Did You Know...?" the same day that the National Archives features the document. Alternatively, other appropriate articles related to National Archives holdings not already selected will be used for new documents of the day by NARA staff and posted to their tumblr.
Wikisource
WP:NARA has a sister WikiProject on Wikisource, WS:NARA. On Wikisource, editors transcribe, proofread, and arrange documents. This helps to make little-known documents more discoverable, or well-known documents more searchable, and improves accessibility. See the files being worked on. If you are new to Wikisource and would like to participate, there are experienced Wikisourcerors willing to be mentors.
New contributions
A list of some recent contributions to the project:
The National Archives has hundreds of thousands of digitized documents in its holdings. We are working on a bulk upload to Commons of one particular cache of about 123,000 TIFF master files in the next few days! Once uploaded, these will require a massive community effort to help categorize the files on Commons and add them to articles on Wikipedia or transcribe them on Wikisource.
Inclusion in the online catalog
We are currently working on a system for including links to pages on Wikimedia projects in the National Archives online catalog. The Wikimedia projects are hosting an increasing number of transcriptions of National Archives documents and high-quality image and video files that are not available through NARA's own site. Links to these Wikimedia pages in the documents' actual catalog records will benefit the end user by providing them access to further resources about the documents, and they will also demonstrate the National Archives commitment to supporting Wikimedians' efforts.
To stop receiving this newsletter, please remove your name from the list.
There's a new campaign. An IP editor was just blocked. But it did give me a chance to use Armageddon and Supermodel wikilinks, so the morning's not a total waste. :) Please review my last dozen edits or so. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I follow on what is interesting, BNL? That IP editor, 92.8.92.108, appears to be a prankster trying to make everyone look bad. This IP editor made a comment against Walter Breuning (the previous World's Oldest Man) here. Since I am an administrator at The 110 Club forum, I have checked that IP address. There are no matches. I note that it is a United Kingdom IP address. I also received word from World's Oldest People Yahoo Groups moderator that the IP address is not recognized there, either. I have no idea who this "Besse Cooper fan" avatar is, but this avatar bothered to leave me a cookie on my talk page so I'm at a loss. Again, what campaign do you both think is going on, and what is this talk about "something is going on off-wiki", BNL? Are either one of you seeking something that is not there? This is really a disappointment in both of your characters thinking that there is something "grand and canvassing" going on. BNL, I would appreciate an answer because I still would want to give a positive feedback to any future adminship you may pursue. Much appreciated, CalvinTy17:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I sound exasperated is because I thought the chapter of misbehavior and accusations were now far behind us (including any walled-garden accusations), considering that in the last few months I was really happy to see everyone calm down. Even at The 110 Club forum, where there are a high number of international teenagers on that forum, there have been almost *zero* talk about any Wikipedia-related stuff in months. This is BOTH the public forum and private forum sides, mind you both. To even assist BNL in his comment: "I do have a couple of ideas, though; I'll have a look around." I can only see 1 link in the last few months where Wikipedia was mentioned here: z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=2430. Please, I beg you both, do not seek out something that is not there -- if you think you are seeing something, please enlighten me so I can once again try to assist in "putting the flames out". Thanks, CalvinTy18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm just overthinking things. It'd be far from the first time that happened; due to some unrelated wiki-events (some blatant canvassing related to the overhaul of WP:NHS went on not too long ago, and I've been working with one of the editors there on a lot of wiki-business lately) my guard is higher than normal, so it's entirely possible I'm just seeing things that aren't there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable and only human. Even I am telling myself, "it seems like I'm now only on Wikipedia to discuss stuff rather than editing content." Go figure. Happy editing, CalvinTy18:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that it's not necessarily the 110 Club-types I'd scan; it could just as easily be Anonymous trolls or the like (Anonymous is a troll-mecca of sorts), who I've had the pleasure of running into at a couple of 9/11-related article talkpages. I'm not specifically targeting the longevity people, because it's rarely that simple on the internet; I actually find the subject and its various internet fora rather interesting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent. By campaign, I meant the September 1 edits of 92.8.92.108 and the very similar edits by 92.8.82.170, on August 25. When BNL brought a third account to my attention, newly created but one BNL's crap detector found suspiciously familiar, I told him he wasn't alone. A campaign can be waged by one person. The edits from the two IP editors sure seem the work of one person. Dunno 'bout BesseCooperFan.
92.8.92.108 has now, since his/her block expired, vandalized my page. His/her campaign continues. David in DC (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I detect sarcasm, but nonetheless, to take you literally: I am glad that you agree that there is no coordinated off-wiki campaign! Yay! :-) By the way, I recognized the conversation that the anonymous editor was talking about regarding The 110 Club. It can be found here: z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=2729. It looks like Nick appeared to misunderstand how FLAGBIO was not applicable to a war-related page, so therefore, he assumed that flags were okay now and asked others for assistance. I don't know the history behind this, but I can check into this. Rest assured, this is not The Secret Garden. :-) 19:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject World's Oldest People for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting
election of the Board of Directors for the next two years
approval of a budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year
report on the activities and accomplishments of the past year
social gathering afterwards at a nearby restaurant
Candidate nominations are open until 11:59pm EDT on Saturday, September 24. We encourage you to consider being a candidate. (see see candidate instructions)
The meeting is open to both the general public and members from within the DC-MD-VA-WV-DE region and beyond. We encourage everyone to attend!
You may join the chapter at the meeting or online.
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude
_At_Launch_Approaching_End_of_Ways_-_NARA_-_5900076_-_1915_edit.jpg)
