User talk:Bdell555/Archive 2010

George Miok

Hi! I wrote an article about George Miok, but an other Canadian wants to delete that, because he thinks it's a memorial or he is not so famous. What do you say about this? Does it look like a memorial? You make a photo about the four soldiers, that's why I write to you. If I will need supporters to not to delete this page, I will contact with you again :) --Eino81 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. And for that picture :) --Eino81 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I should admit to a personal connection to the subject by way of 41 CER, I am generally just an inclusionist who reckons an article can stay if the article subject gets 1000+ hits on news.google.ca for days on end. It's not hurting anything to just leave it.Bdell555 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I need your supoort: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Miok --Eino81 (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was avery good oppinion and a great support! :) --Eino81 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. That makes him special, that he was a foreigh-born Hungarian. Once I read that he was the third Hungarian, who was killed in Afghansitan. I wrote it into the article, but it was dleeted. Yes, he was a Canadian citizen, but he had a Hungarian father, a Hungarian mother, he had active role in the Edmonton Hungarian community and spoke opur language, why should not we say, he was a Hungarian? In hungary we are very proud of foreign-born Hungarian, but in this case it's more rlevant, he had so much connection with the old country. For the last time he was here in Hungary some months ago. I hope, at the end this silly argument will end well --Eino81 (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for "support" is generally not advisable. One rather asks people to review material without asking them to take a position either way. Anyway I would avoid getting into an edit war with another user about any particular edit to the page when there is a fair possibility the article will end up deleted anyway. If it ends up deleted much of your material could be saved by creating a new section called George Miok in the 41 CER article.Bdell555 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7W charter?

Don't you think something would have to be changed at our Wind Rose Aviation article then? Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community restrictions

The article Martin McGuinness, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case that closed in October 2007, and was amended by community consensus in October 2008. The current restrictions are:

All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day). When in doubt, assume it is related.
- Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bdell555. O Fenian (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Here at Wikipedia, we only use reliable sources. Social networking sites, yes even a verified or official Twitter or Youtube account is NOT ACCEPTABLE. So "PS reliable source not required for every claim in Wiki. Everyone knows how to verify this." is a bogus statement.

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Candyo32 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are, in fact, clear that questionable sources may nonetheless be reliable sources about themselves meaning that, in this case, Youtube's statement about what has the most number of views is a reliable source for what has the most number of views on Youtube. In any case, if there is a reliability issue, note that it is impossible for a secondary source to make it reliable when the secondary source says in effect that 100% of its belief comes from the very claim you have a reliability issue with. In other words, if Youtube can't be trusted, it hardly solves the problem to quote a secondary source that simply quotes Youtube. I find it ironic that you delete my sourcing at the same time you inserted the exact same fact (what has most views on Youtube) into another article without providing any sourcing at all!Bdell555 (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though all those words you stated sound good EVERYTHING ON WIKIPEDIA MUST BE VERIFIABLE. And about my edits, they are sourced on the respective article page. Candyo32 (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and pretty much everyone who knows what Twitter is about knows how to verify how many Twitter followers someone has. It is simply not true that every sentence in Wikipedia needs an inline citation, something you are clearly aware of when you are not applying the principle yourself. Just where, exactly, is the source for your unsourced edits?Bdell555 (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt really my business but im going to throw in my 2 cents. Unfortunately Candyo32 is in fact correct. All edits (when changing, adding, or updating something) must contain a reliable source. If it doesnt it falls under WP:OR and will be removed. Regarding the edit to Baby which you cited earlier you are in fact correct that it does need a source, which i will add right after this. Regarding twitter/facebook/youtube, these are not deemed reliable sources and cannot be used to cite references, giving information about them, ex: "baby is the most viewed video in youtube history" would be allowed but needs a reliable source, linking to youtube doesnt count :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is not just whatever you say it is. Allow me to quote from WP:RS: The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged [by reasonable people], and for all quotations. "All edits" is YOUR policy, not Wikipedia's, and you should not be reverting other people inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, which generally reflects the consensus of the editor community. There was no sourcing to Youtube's website here. At issue was a claim of fact where the party providing the information was Youtube. There is also no 100% bar against citing Twitter, such that WP:COMMON sense would not apply. There IS a 100% bar against citing to sources like examiner.com, but that was not the case here. For what it is worth you don't seem to understand WP:OR, because WP:OR deals with a different issue than WP:RS. Some material can satisfy WP:RS but not satisfy WP:OR.Bdell555 (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but i do understand WP:OR. Infact the opening line states Wikipedia does not publish original research meaning it needs a reliable source, no ifs, ands, or buts. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 18:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles

I am filing a request to ArbCom to clarify that the 1RR in the Troubles case is intended to be per 24 hours rather than per day. It will appear shortly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The War Logs

With regards to this edit, I am not sure that the reliable source cited actually says that. Could you point out where in the cited source it actually says that? Thank you. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In my view, the issue of how the last or summary sentence of an article introduction should read is not just a matter of whether there is a clear statement properly cited to a single source. It should be a reflection of the sources generally, since citing just one precisely could be placing WP:UNDUE weight on that source. So I did take a bit of liberty there... I provided a source because without a source it would surely be challenged and/or reverted. Anyway I have added another source, the UK Independent, which says

"The documents ... provide a patchwork of evidence on the progress of the war over six years to the end of 2009 and reveal that the Taliban insurgency is better armed and the US military's equipment less reliable than in the official picture sketched by the Pentagon's spin doctors."

This view is more or less in agreement with the "gloomy picture" mentioned by Der Spiegel, to the extent that "limited progress" against the Taliban should be a minimally controversial summary. I think we should be bit reserved in terms of the strength and specificity of what is said here, in order to preserve editor consensus.Bdell555 (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I removed this again before I had read these comments. You can add it back again if you really like. I didn't particularly disagree with what you wrote, but there were complaints on the talk page of POV, and I generally find the best way to avoid such complaints and reach consensus is to include direct quotes from the reliable source. Again, if you think a more general summary is necessary then you can add your stuff back in again, and I will revise the language if I think it can be improved. Thanks. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bdell555. You have new messages at Odie5533's talk page.
Message added 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kevin keller.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

On 11 September 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Salvatore Giunta (Medal of Honor), which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Mkativerata (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbon devices

The standard and most common resolution is 106 pixels, might as well just go with that. The documentation for the template is at Template:ribbon devices. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a very good reason for NOT going with that, and that's that ribbons that big create exactly the sort of big distraction WP:ICONDECORATION was meant to avoid. What I don't get is what the technical problem is that precludes smaller displays.Bdell555 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this conversation and wanted to chime in cause it seems a lot of folks (mostly the non-military ones) have issues with the display of ribbons. Not too go too far into a history lesson the difference here is that the ribbons arent icons like flags of a contry or logos of a company, they are individual images that represent milestones in the career of a military entity. Sorta like Emmys or Grammys to an entertainer, only they are represented graphically instead of as a title. Just as you would display an image of the person, unit or the ship this is for displaying the individual ribbon or medal of that military entity (including devices where applicable). The table layout simply gives a dynamic way of doing that to best represent the multitudes of possible combinations without having to take a snapshot of each individual combination for each military entity. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bdell555. You have new messages at C628's talk page.
Message added 15:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

And again. C628 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced articles

An interesting comment on Lethbridge municipal election, 2010, do you care to reply? 117Avenue (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to start an argument again, but I found a user who is more deletionist than I. 117Avenue (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to comment at User talk:XLinkBot#Exempt pages. Otherwise I will remove the candidate summaries that you convinced me to keep. 117Avenue (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything has changed here, such that I continue to believe that deletion of candidate summaries that are sourced to non-WP:SELFPUB sources is fundamentally contrary to policy when the material is presented neutrally, and deletion of unsourced but non-controversial material like "accountant" is, while not fundamentally contrary, inadvisable. You previously wanted to delete properly sourced material in favour of external links to WP:SELFPUB sources and I in fact objected to both your preferred replacement and your deletion:

why are you providing external links to so much promotional material? You direct readers to reams of CLEARLY promotional materials about many candidates, while readers get ZERO information about those candidates who have not been promoting themselves on the internet. Can you call attention to another election article on Wikipedia where a consensus has supported this practice of linking to dozens of twitter feeds (a practice that is furthermore discouraged by Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest...?--Bdell555 21 September 2010

Bottom line is that you still have a peculiar idea of what constitutes neutrality. If the Edmonton Journal spends far more ink on Stephen Mandel than some also-ran who ends up getting 1% of the vote, MOST people are not going to automatically conclude that the Journal is biased. Wikipedia's idea of neutrality is perhaps better understood as the ABSENCE of a particular idea about what constitutes neutrality. Wikipedia follows, instead of leads. You seem to think that when there is an absence of reliable secondary sources for a topic the solution to this problem of ignorance is more ignorance: deleting entirely valid information OR making up for the absence problem by introducing dubious, wholescale linking in the name of "balance." That's just not the way it works, or can work. For most other election articles on Wikipedia, editors don't seem to be having the dilemma you see here. If a Bot is selectively deleting candidate twitter feeds or campaign websites, then, yes, one should delete for all, the candidates, but that's primarily because the argument for linking or citing to those sources is dubious anyway (not least because not every candidate has a twitter feed or website). I ended up in an "edit war" with you earlier not primarily because of the content at issue but because you seemed to have a rigid mindset, something that was especially problematic in my view for someone who does so much editing (or potentially admin functions). You may have agreed with me re keeping the particular candidate summaries I wanted preserved, but fundamentally there hasn't really been any meeting of the minds because you still don't seem comfortable with being flexible. Many editors have problems with the Twitter feeds. They should go. Most editors do not have problems with sourced candidate information. That should stay. "Let it go" and use discretion, especially community discretion, instead of looking for a broad rule to forcefully apply and the article will develop collaboratively.Bdell555 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U Smile

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on U Smile. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

The edits you keep restoring, they suck. They contain Twitter, and youtube, they are in no way reliable. The write up currently that i have restored is in standard with GA criteria, which this article is. Please stop as you have now hit 4RR which 99% of the time will get you blocked. Im not gunna report you cause your not a bad editor, just please stop reverting the page. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts never "suck," in my view, and the facts are that the video came out on VEVO before September 30. Sourcing to official/verified Twitter accounts is OK and, in any case, we have to exercise our judgment with respect to sourcing in order to keep them inline with what the ultimate purpose of the guidelines is. Whether it is worth fighting about is certainly a good question, but I do not get generally into edit wars when the edits are focused on the issue at hand. When I end up in these situations it is because someone is not selectively reverting me but engaging in rollbacks. As such, it has less to do with me than with how the editing community in general is being treated. Rollbacks to a previous preferred version ignore the fact there have been interim edits and ignore the contribution that those intermin edits made. Reject those edits, fine, fine at least give them the consideration they deserve.Bdell555 (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lets get a few things straight. WP:TWITTER, twitter is NEVER allowed. According to current version (which i wrote) the video come out September 30, and it says that in the source, i also wrote the write up on Sept 30, because the video came out Sept 30. Now you keep saying im using "Rollback" which is not the case, because i do not have rollback. Now you say you dont engage in edits wars, but why did you constantly restore a version with half the information, and with unreliable sources when it was explained that the version your restoring in not reliable and is not as well written. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Twitter were "NEVER allowed", a Template for using Twitter (see Template:Twitter) would presumably not exist. I'd reject a reply that the community has not considered whether that template should exist, since that exact question has been discussed in the past and the decision was to keep. If Twitter were truly "NEVER allowed", it would be impossible to use "Twitter" in an inline cite without Wikipedia objecting when the edit is submitted, as is the case with a number of sources that are truly recognized as never allowed. In any case, I may have to point to WP:IGNORE here regardless because logic still has to reign supreme. The same edits that deleted my addition added back "I took the opportunity 2 make a video 4 the fans, about a fan, and how we could fall IN LOVE." Where does that come from? A TWEET. I don't think it should be included because this is an encyclopedia, and as such we use words like "to" and "for" instead of "2" and "4". We also don't capitalize "IN LOVE" or, more generally, include un-encylopedic quotes or present material that smacks of Wikipedia:Fancruft. How does that tweet become reliable? Because MTV checked its reliability? How do you know that? More likely MTV just took it as an authentic statement by Justin Bieber. Which brings us to Colin Tilley. I identified the director of the music video as Colin Tilley and this information was deleted without explanation. Tilley says that it appears to him that there was a "leak". In combination with the VEVO timestamp, this suggests confirmation that the video came out early. There is no black/white here, we have to look at the totality of the evidence.

It is this rush to judgment here that is the real issue. If the editors involved here had put their minds to the issue, then, fine, I generally do not challenge without taking it up on the Talk page even when I disagree. But in this case User:L-l-CLK-l-l did what she called a "massive rollback" without any discussion about Tilley's suggestion of a "leak". When I say "rollback" I am referring to whatever this editor was referring to, not to the technical administrative-style action. As for "constantly restore a version with half the information", I don't believe that's true. It's true that I initially left out the synopsis. I didn't think it added anything. To verify its sourcing, you'd have to watch the video, and if you did that, you'd get all the information that was claimed in the synopsis anyway. But when user Candy wanted it back, I put it back. I responded to the other editor(s), trying to incorporate their perspectives, in contrast to who I "edit warred" with here, who made no effort to incorporate so much as a punctuation mark that I had added. There was another edit of mine that appeared to delete the synopsis, but that is just because there was a flurry of almost simultaneous editing and the version I worked on was Candy's instead of L-l-CLK-l-l's. This is, in fact, the reason why I "edit warred": because it will force a discussion like this on a user talk page or the article talk page (or the 3RR noticeboard if another editor took it to that) such that people would be forced to actually look at what the edits actually were instead of what they imagined them to be. I've been on Wikipedia more than 5 years now and the biggest problem continues to be not enough deliberation. Wikipedia rules are supposed to supplement examination of the details, not supplant.Bdell555 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]