This is an archive of past discussions with User:Indubitably. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I've sent you an email. So read it. And then, if you like, reply. I also have a spider on my living room floor. But it's small and non-venomous. I've passed on your best wishes to her (for I always assume the pensive arachnids to be ladies) but asked her not to cause me any distress. As you Americans say... "write me". My very best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I should have checked the block log earlier, I didn't know you had been unblocked, I was only aware of the small ANI topic about the possible socking.— DædαlusContribs21:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey really glad your at least part back. I fell for it, (I don't think I'd ever dealt with Poetlister) don't think anybody really fell for my April Fool, but it was a fun discussion... ϢereSpielChequers21:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the re-op, EVula. I figure texting is the fastest means of communication available for me, so I'd go for it. I mean, it was good enough for my boss to use to lay me off from my management position on April Fools' Day, so it should be good enough for me. :)
Simmer down. Haha. Involvement will remain limited. Other than to annoy Raul, I'm only here to continue to work on BLP issues, for the most part (can't see deleted revs without the bit). And my FA, of course; had to update it. It was being neglected! Can't have that. لennavecia04:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back, and bad luck about the RL job issue as noted above. As your boss did that via text I'd feel fairly confident they are not likely to be your boss for much longer. Pedro : Chat 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Pedro. Yea, if unemployment wasn't up to like 10% here, I'd have a different job. Unfortunately, there's not really another job to go to. And, uh, TRM, yea... something like that, haha. لennavecia04:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Good to see you editing again Jennavecia, but I'm sad to hear about the crap job situation. Good luck with that. Geometry guy19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, G'guy. I have been reinstated like halfway. Until sells go back up, I only manage on the weekends. It's been a mostly bad week. Hopefully this week is better. لennavecia19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Idea for a contest you may be interested in running...
OK, now because I prefer to , I have come up with yet another cunning plan....howsabout a competition over 24 hours:
The person who references the most unreferenced BLP articles (by this I mean leaves a previously totally unreferenced article with at least 3/4 of the sentences with inline refs) over exactly 2 hours wins......kudos (or lots of carrots)
Set up a page for it and a league table - (folks can update as they go or wait until the end), and give four days notice (gives some folks some time to get on down to a library to pick up, say, a baseball or football almanac, or whatever)...and hey presto!
The page is a record, and it might be interesting to see how many unreferenced BLPs are bagged in total.
I just chose 24 hours as an arbitrary figure - could be 48 hours, a week or whatever. My gut feeling is a week might be the longest it should be. Ditto 75% above, could make it 50% referenced or whatever.
Anyway, I'd run it but I'm neck deep in seekrit arbstuff, polishing up articles and other rubbish, and I felt some folks more active on IRC would be better networkers. Plus you could design some nifty wiki-awards :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan, but I'm not sure I'm the one to run it. I'm not planning to devote a whole lot of time to the project and I'd rather spend what time I am here working on the BLPs rather than organizing a contest. Hopefully someone with more time can get that going. Thanks for the comment about creating awards, though. That reminds me that I need to check in on some awards someone was working on for me for Sweeps. لennavecia14:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I feared you might say that but I understand. I'll see if anyone else wants to coordinate it, and if not, I might do it myself as I am curious to see how many can be improved in one go. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Jenna would have to do it - no one can match her in ferociousness, so she could keep all of the contestants in line. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Simmer down, Ottava. Check my contribs. I'm busy. When all of the tens of thousands of articles on the list of possible BLPs not categorized in living people has been completed, perhaps I'll have more time. لennavecia15:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Nikhil Koratkar deletion
I don't mind deleting that if you're satisfied that the individual doesn't meet notability guidelines for academics, which isn't something I've looked into closely; I created the article along with a cluster of others relating to nanotube membranes.
But I wanted to note that "No assertion of notability" isn't actually valid deletion criteria; per WP:NNC, notability is simply the criteria for whether or not to include an article on a particular subject, not a directive that WP articles need to try to make claims that their subjects are notable. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩16:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Struthious. I think we're interpreting things differently. WP:N states "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles." To me this states that if a subject is notable, non-notable information may be included in the article, if appropriate, of course. Notability is about the subjects suitability for an article, rather than "notable information" to be included in an article. In this case, I don't believe Nikhil Koratkar currently meets our standards for inclusion, and there is no assertion of notability made in the article, which is often given as a reason for deletion in AFD discussions. لennavecia16:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
But under your phrasing of it there, doesn't that still mean that you're saying you know that none of the information in the article is "notable information" - that you know what notable information looks like and you aren't seeing it? If that's what you're saying it seems contradictory to say that notability guidelines don't limit the content of the article, but articles must include "notable information" content that anyone can identify as such simply by looking at it.
It doesn't seem to me that you could distinguish "notable information" from "non-notable information" without knowing anything about the subject. From what I'd read when I created the article it appeared that Koratkar was one of only a very few researchers, or was a seminal researcher, into the notable topic of nanotube membranes. That might not be true - I did do an hour or so of research into it but I'm not a physicist myself - but if it is, the statement that this is his subject of research, which is in the article, is the "notable information" it would seem to me. I could've called him a "major researcher" or a "significant researcher" or an "important researcher" - but it seems to me that WP:NNC is there so that editors don't have to feel a need to write so as to spin the article subject that way; encyclopedia content ought to be more impartial than that IMO.
(This is all assuming that you marked it for deletion after only looking at the article, but re-reading what you wrote there I don't think you're saying you know anything about Koratkar independent of what it says in the article, correct me if I'm wrong.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩17:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
As I said, Wikipedia has standards for inclusion. Articles of non-notable subjects should be deleted. If an article makes no assertion of notability, it can and should be deleted. See WP:CSD A7, for example. Articles that have no assertion of significance or importance can be speedily deleted. Now, as far as our disagreement in the meaning of the wording we're debating here, I don't really have another way to explain my view. I do not see how this individual meets our notability requirements, thus I believe his article should be deleted per WP:N. Now, were there a verifiable claim to notability, as I understand the wording, WP:N would not prevent non-notable information from being included in the article. لennavecia17:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
...Okay, so if I'm parsing what you said there correctly, your answer on the question of whether you have any knowledge of the subject to determine whether or not it is non-notable is "no", and that because you're continuing to talk about "assertion of notability" you're standing on the technicality that I didn't call him an "important" researcher?
I don't care, go ahead and delete it, as I indicated above this individual article is not very important to me so I don't consider it worth fighting over. But I hope that you can at least understand that it's kind of inconsiderate, and looks like a bit of a double standard and an assumption of bad faith, when this article is one of the products of an hour-plus of work on my part and you have apparently decided to delete it on no more than a moment's thought and you're asserting that it doesn't merit you spending even a fraction of the amount of time looking into it that I spent on it, even as someone in semi-retirement.
Props to you for being a patroller and wielding the mop and bucket and all but sometimes the way you people on that part of the project carry out your work is a bit patronizing. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. You can call him important all you like, but tha is not an assertion of notability. I'm sorry your work may have been wasted, but as it is, the subject does not appear to be notable. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, the subject does not meet the standards for inclusion. I don't know how else to explain this. It has nothing to do with your wording. It's the lack of notability displayed in the article. If he somehow meets the criteria, it's not told in the article at all. Simply being a researcher does not make one notable. What did he do that is notable? That's what is not asserted in the one-sentence article. You're accusing me of bad faith and such because of what? It's one sentence that has zero claim to notability. That's it. Period. I'm going through hundreds of BLPs, CSDing, PRODing, and AFDing when I feel it is appropriate. I PRODed this one, instead of CSDing, because I thought perhaps he's done something of note that could be added. If that's not the case, then please let it rest. لennavecia18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the histrionics but believe me, I sighed alot too when I saw that you'd nominated it for deletion with that nominal reason because I had a pretty good idea of how you'd come to that conclusion and you have resoundingly fulfilled my expectations.
I didn't say he's just a researcher. I said I think he's an important researcher in his field... i.e. a notable researcher in his field, which is definitely an assertion of notability - to claim otherwise is to play word games.
And I did not accuse you of bad faith. I said that it looks like an assumption of bad faith (you assuming bad faith on my part) to think "perhaps he's done something of note" but persist in pursuing deletion of the article rather than going and taking a look - even just in the other articles on Wikipedia that mention the topic, which I have to assume that you did not do - even after I've told you that I created the article because it appeared to me that he's a notable researcher in his field.
I really do not care about this article - I have written hundreds of articles, several of which have been deleted for legitimate reasons or when the criteria of notability has actually been established as lacking, and in most of those cases I haven't objected. So please don't intimate that this is due to a feeling of ownership on my part for this article, because it's not. I pointed this out because vague claims related to the notability of articles unconnected to actual notability policy are extremely overused, often for the purpose of saving someone the time or effort to establish an actual case for deletion.
Look - maybe my concerns are unwarranted, but I really am just trying to communicate with you here. It just seems likely to me that when someone goes through and rapidly marks hundreds of articles for deletion, if they're off the mark in even a small percentage of the cases they're probably wasting far, far more of other peoples' time than their own. And this seems especially likely to me because when I talk to people who do this about what notability means "an important researcher in a field is not a notable researcher in that field" is often the kind of reasoning I get.
If you're worried I'm going to harass you or try to take some sort of action over the deletion, don't, I genuinely don't care about the article. I've said my lot and at least you've done me the courtesy of reading it and responding, thank you. You probably still aren't convinced and I guess I understand, so don't feel the need to respond to this if you don't want to. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, it isn't a matter of your wording. You stating he is important isn't an assertion of notability without a reliable source backing up something of note. Does that make sense? I mean, what has he done that makes his research important? That's what I mean. There has to be something detailing to the reader what he's done that makes him notable. Simply saying he's an important researcher is not enough. He may be notable, but from the sentence I've got to go from, I don't know. That's where the problem lies. You want me to come up with some other, more "valid" reason for deletion, but I've only got one sentence to work with. I don't know what you want me to do. Because I believe it may be possible that he's done something of note, I've PRODed it to give you, or whoever else may be interested, the opportunity to expand the article to include said necessary assertion of notability. I don't really understand how such a request has now required so many kb of discussion, but alas, this is how this project works. Shame be upon me for forgetting this during my hiatus. Regardless, I would like to address your claim that I tag hundreds of articles for deletion. That's false. I am categorizing hundreds of BLPs under the living people category, I have only nominated, in various forms, perhaps a dozen or so articles. Most of those are at AFD. I think this article is the only PROD, maybe one other. And then a few have been CSD'd, mostly as attack pages, blatant advertising or copyright violations. Before this batch, I think I only nominated maybe three articles for deletion in more than two years.
I really don't want to discuss this anymore. You apparently don't see my view, and I don't see yours. Perhaps it would be best to let the PROD ride out; hope that if he is notable, someone adds the information; and get on to doing our work in the meantime. Your work here is valued, and I don't mean to make it seem otherwise with this PROD. لennavecia02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Your question
Dear Jennavecia, thanks for your question. I'm slightly busy in RL, so I'll reply to your question within the next 24 hours. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lara, got a question for you per [2]. What do you mean by "100+ reviews medal has been created"? You know the drill, as I never watchlist other people's pages, so please reply on my talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page07:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the medal, I appreciate it. I've enjoyed sweeps for the most part except for some of the resistance we face for trying to improve the articles we're reviewing. I realize that I've probably reviewed some of the shorter articles (which probably has inflated my numbers), but did so to help to increase the progress we've made so far. I'm surprised that we haven't even passed the halfway mark yet, and wish there was more participation. Perhaps individual WikiProjects should be contacted to review some of their own articles, especially since they know the designated guidelines and MOS for their articles. I'm currently working on other projects right now and likely won't return to sweeps for a while. However, when we get close to the final stretch, I'll do my best to rejoin reviewing to help complete sweeps. It will be unfortunate if the other 1,000+ articles never get reviewed, so hopefully we do get more participation. Thanks again, and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
People knew about the process. They are just shy to help out (plus not everyone is dedicated to review 100 articles), which seems to be the problem because they have to take an entitle subtopic. OhanaUnitedTalk page12:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
They don't have to complete the entire sub-topic. We just don't want people stumbling over each other doing reviews. They also don't have to do 100 reviews. I just attributed the award to 100 or more because it's an impressive contribution. That's not to say less won't also be award-worthy. It just means they won't get that particular award, which was created for that particular achievement. لennavecia12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Jenna I beleive the way it reads right now is totally appropriate. It is factual and is no different in my mind than the discussion on who bought the camp when, who inherited it when and who runs it now. These are all facts. Just like Michael died following the camps swim test. Additionally the case file with the Ontario Provincial Police is still open. They are now investigating whether there was any criminal negligence based upon testimony that came out in the Ministry of labors csse. Two people changed their stories. Assuming the OPP does not file criminal charges against the camp then the Regional Coroner may hold a Coroners Inquest.
Simply noting that the death occurred is not appropriate for the article. It's probably best to wait until the matter is settled. If fault is legally placed on the camp, then it would be appropriate to have the sourced information placed in the article. Until then, it needs to stay out. لennavecia15:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You're aware that topic number 3 for today's WikiVoices recording is scheduled to be 'Expanding the role of female volunteers', proposed by Cary Bass? Recording is delayed by a few minutes; may we have liberty to discuss your declining to join us? DurovaCharge!21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this the "Skype chat" Synergy was talking about? He made no mention that it was any sort of formal discussion. Regardless, I had to go to work. Furthermore, that topic makes no sense to me. Wikipedia is mostly anonymous. A good number of "female contributors" have turned out to not actually be female. That isn't a problem for me, but it does lead one to wonder: what "role", exactly, is to be expanded? I don't see a difference between the female and male editors. I've never felt like I was somehow handicapped on this project because I've got a vag. Quite the opposite, actually. Expanding the role of female volunteers... really? لennavecia04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The actual point was to see if you were interested in joining the "chat" (And I did say that it was WikiVoices, and who was going to be there.). From there, we could have discussed the likelihood of you joining the recording. To my knowledge, you didn't say you were going to work. It was more like I'd rather watch grass grow, water boil, etc.Synergy11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget "paint dry," and what I've actually been doing, which is "categorizing BLPs." It was all four of those things I listed. I just went back and checked the logs, because I don't recall you saying it was WikiVoices, but you did in the first line you pinged me, in which you stated you wanted me to join so you could argue with me. I suppose the mention of WV didn't stick with me because I'd never heard of it before. This was following you describing what I thought was just a regular chat as having gagging and flushing toilets, but before you noted that someone was "farting." I noted my reasons for expecting it to be boring, such as sole topics of discussion being photograph restoration and ANI, then you trolled for a bit. So that wrapped up at about 3pm my time. I then went to watch Dr. Phil while categorizing BLPs, then I got ready for work.
So, basically, Synergy is the worst possible candidate to invite anyone to anything. Obvious reasons aside, he pitched it in the most immature way possible, and didn't bother to emphasize what it was. Having never heard of this program before, I find it unlikely many would have taken the toilet humor as an introduction to anything intended to be serious. Moreover, had I been presented an invitation worth accepting, upon learning the topic, I most likely would have still declined for reasons noted above.
And last, but surely not least: Chip, are you sure? I'll have to check on that... checking... Okay, so "vag" has way more definitions, but the lead one is bad times for me to use. For "vaj", about 1/4 as many definitions, but a simple abbreviation. I think, however, I'll stick with "vag" because using a j makes no sense, and it's Urban Dictionary I'm using to determine all this, which is about as reliable as Wikipedia, amirite? ;) And, to be real, I don't normally use it. Only in places where people tend to frown on swearing. :D لennavecia12:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did in fact mention to Durova that I'm the last person who should be asking you (based on the "trolling" you note; just childish jokes and what not on irc, never really serious but also note that was a joke on Julian and not you), but only you, given our history of sarcasm ;). I figured if you were really interested you would have gone to the project page. No worries though. Synergy12:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Would have gone to the project page if I'd realized it was a project. Maybe link it next time you mention it to someone. That's what SoxBot and YamaBot are for. لennavecia13:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Doh! I keep forgetting they're in there. I'm more used to seeing unilinky (a different link bot). Synergy13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been on a few episodes of it when it was Not The Wikipedia Weekly, and I provided web hosting for the MP3 versions and RSS / iTunes feed. It can be interesting or boring depending on whether you're into the topic they're discussing. Usually they're doing it in a time slot that isn't convenient to me, like when I'm still at work. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries. We're hidden on an obscure corner of the project nobody ever notices: a box right by the Signpost and Wikipedia Weekly at the Community Portal. Only been there a year. How was the paint; is it dry yet? ;) DurovaCharge!14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
–Juliancolton | Talk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
In checking references, I discovered that Katarzyna Dolinska, is more correct than Katarzyna Dolińska. Can you please delete the locked redirect and move the unlocked article. ...MistyWillowstalk19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's all done now. Moved over deleted redirects, restored to merge, changed all links and double-redirects. لennavecia19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Bad news, good news?
Is it fair to say that the economic downturn has benefitted Wikipedia at least in your case? Thanks for your efforts to fix up the BLTs BLPs. Oops. Bacon mania strikes again! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was a combination of events. But at least part credit can go to the failing economy. I was laid off from my management position the morning of April 1. I have, however, been partially reinstated, for limited hours effective this past Sunday. Raul654 was also a great influence on my return. Be sure to go thank him. لennavecia19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll leave you to the awarding of barnstars and other recognitions for those who helped inspire your return. But good luck with the whole career "thing". :) It's nice to have you back in the meantime. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, you were recommended by Iridescent to help with the article above. There are some unusual circumstances that I think should be taken into account when applying the rules regarding acceptable sourcing. If you could read the discussion page and look at the article, perhaps you could help decide whether the whole article really needed to be gutted like that?
I kept getting side-tracked from this. Apologies. Looks like it's taken care of now. For what it's worth, I would have sided against you. لennavecia04:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just sayin...
...that in projectspace crap you tend to drop the science, and have an inttligence that should outrank the mob rule. Alas... //roux03:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been and will continue to edit the article. You encouraged me to act instead of just opining... and I have so far been able to source her major award and find some decent reviews of her work. I wil continue with a rewrite through the day and will end by removing most of her listed works... keeping only the ones that received critical response. Best regards, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Extremely gracious, thank you. He has written me and I will glad of his help. You were correct in that the original article was in sad, sad shape. As I wrote, and in searching the names of her works, I found some very decent reviews that spoke specifically toward her acting... and not just trivially. With some effort, the article will shine. Best regards, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.03:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes... trolling. Good times. I'm pretty much on a narrow focus right now. Other than BLP-related stuff, it's just the occasional request for admin assistance. لennavecia04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for your note before. I responded on my talk page as asked and received no answer. I have undertaken to review the situation in 24 hours. Redheylin (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I read it, I just haven't checked your comments to AN/I yet, as I'm finishing up a couple other off-wiki tasks. I will take a look before I go to bed tonight when I have the opportunity to devote my full attention to it, and will respond on your talk page. لennavecia04:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I made ONE change - to make terms agree with the rest of the article and the best reference - and the user reverted to a version which he knew his source did not support. I gave him 24 hours to find better refs on his talk page. I made no further edits. The user then created the incident. I am in no doubt that he intended to get that other editor blocked, and I just happened along at that moment, because I saw it had recently been handled by a 30. I think it is very bad that the admin noticeboard has ignored my comments alerting that the matter is unresolved. I cannot explain why you thought I was the one inserting unreferenced matter, except in regard to the "Alford plea", which IS referenced at Osho but with the Harvard system, which I am unable to use. I believe the complaint was manufactured to distract attention from the editor's self-confessed aim; to assemble isolated phrases from news releases in support of a OS theory of a militaristic power structure, and that he has failed to distinguish between, or intentionally conflated, references to the executive at the Oregon commune and some imaginary overall religious heirarchy. His contention of my "focus on Osho" is evidently bogus, his reversion rude, his references misrepresented, his use of loose press opinions, coupled with a complete failure to include academic sources which flatly contradict them, is inexcusible. If editors can create trouble for those who try to avoid edit war, and admins uphold those who want it, the system is failing badly. The accusation of my disrupting to "promote" osho is unacceptable. Redheylin (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts
Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. I think I appreciated your concerns most of all, because they are regarding a subject area I have given little thought to previously. I can't promise that I will become involved in BLP work any time soon, but you have definitely gotten me to think about the subject, and I will have to continue to ponder it. The work that I have done on biographies so far has been mostly on, ah, BDPs? :) Did a lot of work to get Gary Gygax to GA and helped with Alex Raymond and a little with Hergé; Dave Arneson, who died during my RfA, is my next target. I will do my best in the meantime to give some limited help to BLPs now and then, and to generally help out where I see help is needed. Happy editing. :) BOZ (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this very thoughtful RFA thanks spam message. :) I'm glad I gave you something to think about and I hope you find yourself inclined to help at some point. With access to the admin tools, you'll have a better glimpse into how ugly things can get in some of these articles. If you find yourself wanting something to do to help, let me know. :) لennavecia13:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa
BLP issues
Hey, is there a venue or project for editors interested in upholding WP:BLP? Obviously there's the admin notice board, but I was thinking of something more community driven. I know there's that admin watch, and pedophile watch (If I remember correctly). Not that I'm suggesting anything that radical. I'm just really pissed off with the whole thing at the moment. — R203:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll create something tomorrow. In the mean time, if you would like to help out, check out WP:BLP/N, which is in desperate need of more eyes, and WP:ANUS (I didn't name it). لennavecia03:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will do, I would like to think I am quite good at the BLP thing. I was also thinking, we need to start blacklisting unreliable websites liberally (or at least more often). Just as an example, Digital Spy is being used as a source on a lot of biographies, at one stage Jade Goody was covered in it. I know she's not alive anymore, but she was at the time. Stopping people from using crap sources (thus forcing them to use stronger ones), will go some way to helping the BLP issue. For some reason Wikipedia seems resistant to the liberal blacklisting of websites unless it's "spam". I'm tired of arguing with multiple newbies, who don't understand why using obscure websites as sources is not acceptable. It's time draining for a start. — R203:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jennavecia, I see you've been busy tidying things up in MZMcBride's userspace. From time to time, I've worked on some of the BLP issues he's identified on some of those pages. I don't, however, have any desire to work on a page whose redirect is WP:ANUS. Since you are being so efficient here, perhaps you might consider alternative titles for that page that don't relate to such a redirect. Just a thought. Risker (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting that your desire to improve the BLP situation depends on the acronym of the shortcut. I didn't create that one, but I'll make an alternative for you. لennavecia14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you missed my point. I had spoken to MZMcBride about the use of that acronym some time ago; however, the acronym was not attached to lists of BLP issues until these moves, it was attached to a list of people willing to work on the project, and a description of it. There's just something not right (in my opinion) with linking a word meaning "asshole" to a list of BLP articles. Risker (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't create the page, MZMcBride did. I think it's a reference to what the BLP situation is to the project. Cleaning up this mess, well, you get the idea. Respectfully, my talk page is not the place to discuss renaming a project page. Personally, I don't think it's inappropriate. I think it's an appropriate joke proportional to the joke Wikipedia is carrying on with it's BLP policy and enforcement, failed calls for change and improvement, etc, etc. Depends on one's perspective, I suppose. لennavecia14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, also, he had set it up for those working on the categorization of BLPs, but the name was actually created for the task I just moved there, which at the time had not yet rolled out. I'm not sure why he put it there to begin with. لennavecia14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of why he set it up, we have discussed it in the past. It is one of the reasons for what some have considered a "mixed message" in this remedy in the recently concluded case. The problem isn't so much the lists as the acronym used to describe it, which sounds like a bit of an in-joke to (some) Wikipedians, but could easily be misinterpreted to be referring to the subjects of the articles rather than the people who insert BLP violations. That wasn't as significant an issue when it was on the page listing volunteers, who personally elected to add their names to a page with that acronym. You added the acronym to the page with the lists of BLP issues (it wasn't attached to that content before the moves), hence I came to your page to discuss it. What about an acronym like WP:BLPFIX instead? Risker (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You asked for alternative titles in your original post, which I read as a desire for the project page title to change. I've implemented your requested alternative shortcut and I've not iincluded the ANUS shortcut on the page with it, despite the fact that I find it highly unlikely that anyone with commonsense would take it to be a reference to the subjects on the page, much less would it be an easy interpretation considering the name of the page, in my opinion. لennavecia15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
True enough, I did ask for alternative titles, but on reflection I think you're right that the title of the page is okay. Thanks for changing the shortcut. It's easy to forget that sometimes non-Wikipedians see things very differently than those of us who've come to understand the culture. Such acronyms become our internal shorthand and wind up in places that people don't consider at the time of their creation. I'm pretty sure even MZMcBride would be concerned to see an edit summary saying "Fixed per WP:ANUS", particularly if the edit was to add a reliable source reference to negative material in a BLP, but it would inevitably happen. Risker (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to say the most important thing here. Nice work on your part to help bring MZMcBride's hard work to a larger audience. I'm really impressed that you decided to return to work in this crucial area, because I know it can be heartwrenching. Thank you. Risker (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Jenna. I think the semiprotection of Beck should be lifted. The level of vandalism there is hardly at a level that requires protection–so far in 2009, it's averaging less than six vandal edits per month, with none in the eleven days prior to being protected. If this were requested at RFPP, it would be swiftly declined. Since this is still the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I'd like you to please reconsider. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Bong. Thanks for coming to my talk page with this. The protection was based on the fact that it's a BLP and the vandalism that has occurred in the recent history, including the necessity to temporarily move the page to delete edits, suggests that it's best to place long-term protection on the article. We should be taking whatever steps we can to protect the living people who we have biographies on, including those such as Beck whom are higher on the Google search list.
Also, in response to your RFPP comment, I agree with you, and generally, I would decline such a request. However, BLPs are an exception in my eyes. If you are of the strong opinion that this article is better unprotected—and by that I mean better for the subject, not better for the project—then you have no objections from me for decreasing the duration or altogether removing protection. However, if further vandalism occurs, more than petty vandalism, I won't hesitate to reprotect. Moral obligation to protect living subjects and all. لennavecia22:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
With regards to deleted edits, are you talking about these edits that were relocated, or were there others that I'm not aware of? As you see, there was nothing libelous there. BLP or not, I fail to see how a one year semiprotection out of nowhere falls within the protection policy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the move in the most recent history, which I don't see in the log you have above, but looking back at the history, it seems to have been part of that. I assumed deleted edits would be vandalism, otherwise, why are they deleted? Regardless, as I say, if you believe it's better for the subject, go ahead and unprotect. The year is a liberal application of the protection policy for BLPs, considering the project, Jimbo and the Foundation don't currently care about them. لennavecia23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go ahead and unprotect it then, and I promise I'll keep a close eye on it. While I do appreciate what you're trying to do, it's all a little too liberal for my tastes. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh. My bad. Sorry about that. I'll ask for a query of all article pages with the cat and I'll go back and fix it. Thanks for letting me know. لennavecia04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry for old mistakes. My bot fixed them. This is a common mistake editors do. I just though I had to inform for future edits since you are a very active editor. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe you supported something per me. I did a snip-and-clip screenshot photo of that, blew it up as big as my body, hung it over my bed, and now I go to sleep every night with a smile. A creeped out smile, but a smile nonetheless. -->DavidShankbone04:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This award for services to Her Majesty and The British Empire, is hereby granted to Jennavecia for her work in supporting the BBC. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice to know the £140 ($200) the BBC thoughtfully charges for the privilege of watching their 24/7 stream of drivel isn't being wasted on trivial things like "writers". – iridescent23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Jay. ;) And hahahahahahahaaha, thank you, Casliber! XD
As I have said so many times before, I write the really hard-hitting articles of the utmost importance. Those not covered by Britannica... or, apparently, the BBC... until NOW, BABY! YEA, THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S COVERED BY THE BBC NOW! OH, YEA!لennavecia11:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Lara, congrats on getting such an august award. I guess this entitles you to drink warm beer and talk about the weather. ϢereSpielChequers19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You rule. On a similar note, I found the BBC "journalists" ripping most of Bobby Robson a year or so ago when he won a prominent award. It's nice we do their jobs on their behalf, isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, ya know, MJK is my proudest work as far as content goes on this project. I thoroughly enjoyed writing that article and taking it through FAC, and I enjoy keeping it up to date now. It is by far the best resource of information on him available anywhere on the web, and perhaps elsewhere, so I am very pleased to see it being picked up and distributed by other large websites, providing it links to WP. It's great advertisement for the project, as (toot toot) it's well-written and comprehensive article, so it's all benefits. I do, however, wish they'd include this link ;). Haha. لennavecia21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
AFD Re-opened
As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Kindly tell me what incivility I have used against you. I have no idea and I would like to know, so I wont repeat it. Dendlai (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good point. That was NOT meant to be a comment on her, merely on her editorial behaviour. I don't know much aboutnher. My comment there (good catch, but doesn't quie match 'continued civility issues" which it claims I repeatedly engaged in.) I apologise if it took it as a personal insult. It was merely intended as a reflection of it's editing. Dendlai (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget the "it", which I find highly amusing, yet deliberate and continued incivility for the matter of making a WP:POINT. I stated at the discussion there that I was no longer inclined to participate. As arguments are being completely ignored, straw men constructed, and endless circling of arguments, I believe it's a waste of time and serves no purpose, thus I see no point in continuing the discussion on my talk page, which I generally disapprove of regardless, as noted in bullet point two of my edit notice on this page. لennavecia19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologise for how I "debated" yesterday. I should have disengaged and taken time to think and distance myself from it all long before I did. It's a problem I sometimes have with regards to debating subjects that can make me emotional. I am sorry, and quite disappointed in myself for getting carried away. If nothing else, I made the points I wanted to make extremely badly. I went into a conflict mode, when that was the least productive thing I could have done. So, again. I apologise. I wish I was beyond letting emotions get the better of me. Dendlai (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I can understand how one can let emotions cloud their judgment. I've certainly done it many times. No worries. لennavecia02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Removal of some stuff
Hi Jennavecia. I removed this but I see you were already following the thread on WR. I've left it removed due to the less than constructive comments that on WP would be construed as "personal attacks". Apologies if this is not what you'd have wanted. Pedro : Chat 20:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
GlassCobra 13:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
to 
, I have come up with yet another cunning plan....howsabout a competition over 24 hours:
–Juliancolton | Talk 04:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
