User talk:Dancter/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

You need to stop deleting things

You need to stop deleting things other people put on Wikipedia because most of them are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richboy45 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to the "Bloodism" article. To me, it seemed fairly apparent it was a case of something you just made up. If you wish to defend your article as legitimate, you'd need to directly verify the information by adding specific citations to reliable published sources. That vampire.com link doesn't cut it. Dancter (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Richboy. Maybe Bloodism is real, just not heard of that much. 216.124.194.34 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can say "maybe". "Maybe" you made it up. "Maybe" the fact that it's not heard of that much makes it impossible to verify by Wikipedia,and thus not suitable to include. "Maybe" you're Richboy. "Maybe" you should be using your school connection for something constructive, rather than vandalizing Wikipedia. Dancter (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fools! Richboy is everywhere! Even in people you wouldn't expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.9.49 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.9.111 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to top deleting things.

You said:

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Last.fm. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Although you provided a source stating that the Last.fm service cannot currently disambiguate artists with identical names (which is apparently a technical issue, and not a policy), no source was provided describing or explaining the Last.fm's actual protections of partners' trademarks against identically-named artists, nor was a source provided describing or explaining the implied (and nebulous) claim of unfairness in these facts. Please review the original research policy again, particularly the sections on use of primary sources and synthesizing material. If you still disagree, please discuss in the related talk page thread. Thank you.

Balderdash. If you know that it's technical issue then explain how you know, then, explain why it doesn't apply to artists signed to last.fm's affiliates.

Sorry, but you can't hide behind "original research" on this just because Last.fm doesn't explicitly acknowledge that they have an inequitable policy. Of course they don't. But the fact remains that their stated policy -- and it is policy, whether or not that policy stems from a technical limitation, as is appropriately referenced -- is only applied to indie artists. If you want to pretend that WP:SYN applies (rather than your own inexplicable bias) then wiki's own policy is:

Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

There's nothing more reliable than the company's own stated policies. So don't you dare delete it. It is the stated policy of Last.fm that artists with the same names are conflated, and yet that policy does not apply to artists whose intellectual property rights are owned by last's partners. If you don't believe it, try creating an "artist" named "The Police."

The most you can do is point out the discrepancy in the policy, not -- by a long shot -- delete reference to it.

What's astounding is your willingness to bend reality -- citing first "original research," then "synthesis," to remove something you don't approve of, despite that it is adequately referenced, and irrefutable. The answer to why an alternative "The Police" would be removed, while an indie duplicate name would not, is an intellectual property matter, which is not only the crux of the discrepancy, but something upon which I dare say you are not qualified to pass judgment, unless you are an IP attorney. Are you?

How dare you. Their policy is a matter of record. That they inequitably apply it is a matter of record. How dare you suggest that unless they explicitly acknowledge the inequity, it can't be referenced? Of course it can. You actually presume to defend the discrepancy as "a technical issue," (as if that rendered meaningless the intellectual property issues) but with no further examination of the "technical issues" you're somehow magically privy to? And when the policy in question is stated in plain language on their own website? How dare you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.65.124 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because Last.fm wouldn't acknowledge that it would have an inequitable policy doesn't mean that another reputable source wouldn't, if it was indeed something considered important. If you read the section on primary sources fully, you should already know that a solid secondary source like a news article would be a preferable citation over what the company would put out, anyway. As you quoted yourself from the Wikipedia policy, "each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." Only one claim in your paragraph was ever sourced. It is primary source material, as I pointed out to you already. If you "only make descriptive claims" of the information stated therein, per the Wikipedia policy, you would:

• have done a better job describing, making it clear that it was in reference to artist profile pages, and not artist registration, which is different.
• not have tried to pass if off as a source for the statements that followed, which was interpretive editorializing to push your own particular viewpoint.

Last.fm's data collection for off-site music-playing activity is based on metadata gathered by software installed by users for various music-playing programs. Songs that are imprinted with the same values in the Artist field are currently collected under the same artist profile. A more sophisticated system based on audio fingerprinting is still in development.[2] That the system cannot disambiguate different artists with the same name in profile pages at this point in time should not be construed as policy that the management does not differentiate a claim to a name by an established affiliate from that of an independent artist which may not have adequately demonstrated its rights to use the same name. That is not a policy inconsistency. If you are referring to the statement about identically-named artists having "equal right to appear", the FAQ item stipulates that this applies for "valid artist[s]". You can dispute how the company applies the concept of "valid artist", but you cannot claim that Last.fm is inconsistent with its own policy. The company is actively working on a system which would allow the disambiguation of all artists sharing the same name. In the meantime, the screening process for popular names is intended to prevent issues such as exploitative squatting of the artist pages.

I still don't get how Last.fm is violating intellectual property rights for independent artists. The site requires that artists hold the rights to content they upload, and if an artist is unable to register itself with the site, it wouldn't be able to upload any such material for Last.fm to misuse. Plagiarism can be handled in the typical fashion. The same can be said for name trademark conflicts. Last.fm is hardly unusual in its handling of the matter, and the difficulties for smaller entities in protecting their IP against larger ones can be found pretty much anywhere else. Whether its name is unique or non-unique, an artist has no inherent right to a particular website registration. As for my qualification to evaluate Last.fm's FAQ entry, or more directly, your contribution to the Last.fm article on Wikipedia, if it's such "plain language", I wouldn't need to be an IP attorney to understand it. Would I?

Please direct any further discussion to the article talk page thread I linked to in my last post on your talk page, and allow this discussion to be opened up to the other editors, who may be able to help contribute to or mediate the dispute. Dancter (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To Dancter for diligence in the tireless battle against Linkspam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. --Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I probably should've been a bit more pro-active about the Super PC spamming case, but anti-spam work is not actually an area of interest for me. I have no problem whatsoever with going straight to blacklisting the sites. I should be thanking you for your diligence, remedying several spamming problems that were particularly burdensome for me. Thank you for the star, though. I guess I can't really claim anymore that I've never gotten a legitimate boilerplate message that wasn't a welcome message, or related to byzantine fair use image issues. Dancter (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You delt with this spammers nonsense since june 07, you earned it! thanks again. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Thanks for your vigilance but can you explain why you don't think the Brain Rules Web tutorials at http://www.brainrules.net/the-rules do not fit under External Links in the Brain category. This is not advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishermansbay (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note the "links normally to be avoided" section in the page I pointed to, particularly item #13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject". The site contains self-help material that is only indirectly related to the main subject of that article, which is the biological organ. That article isn't even about the human brain, which has it's own separate article. Even there, your site wouldn't be appropriate, as it has more to do with the mind than the brain.

Not only that, but the actual content of the site is sparse, and is mostly organized around the selling of a book, which falls under item #5: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". Try proposing your link at articles like biological psychology, but indiscriminately adding your links to tangentially-related articles is not that productive for the project. If your link is really that valuable, then you should have no problem convincing the other editors on the various articles' talk pages. Dancter (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving Nintendo 64 to Featured Article status

I am aiming to improve Nintendo 64 to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have edited the article substantially recently. If you have time, please help out by contributing to the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to my recollection, all of my edits to the article have been fairly minor. I wish you well in your efforts, but I'm currently focusing my Wikipedia energies on other projects. I don't know if I would be able get to working on the Nintendo 64 article in whatever timeframe you're looking at. I'm sorry. Dancter (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

improving Nintendo GameCube to Featured Article status

I am working on improving Nintendo GameCube to Featured Article status, and noticed that you made a substantial number of contributions to the article recently. If you have time, please help out by improving the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if these messages are automated, but I'm definitely noticing some boilerplate text between this post and your last message to me. It doesn't seem as if Mega Man 5 is still pushing a disproportionate pro-GameCube perspective on the article as much, but there is still a bunch of such material left over. So far it seems you have performed general cleanup, but the issue will need to be confronted more directly if the article is to become more professional. Good luck. Dancter (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SingStar article

A couple months back you commented at Talk:SingStar about a proposal to change SingStar-related articles. The discussion has recently come up again, and I've been discussing with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles about whether or not we should include track lists for the games. If you have the time, I'd like to get a third opinion on the matter if possible. Thanks, --Tntnnbltn (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had more time, but it seems like the situation is okay at the moment. Dancter (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help with the N.E.S. article. Awesome. Now I can rest easy. I'm surprised that a star article had a possible error in there! The new wording is perfect. Thanks again!!! --Scottymoze (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleopatra Stratan page

You say: "the link was redundant and unnecessary" about a link to her world record?! How stupid can somebody to say it's "not necessary" to mention such an achievement? The problem with Wikipedia is that any moron can do anything-like you did, editing/ removing an important piece of information, twice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldRecordsAcademy (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was my assumption that the in-text citation for the record which was already mentioned in the article was active, and therefore enough to establish the world record. After your subsequent revert, I examined the pre-existing link, and found that I could not access the article. I then replaced that citation with one using your link. Either way, it would be redundant to list your link under "External links". Dancter (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Great reference!

This is extremely useful, I'm glad you found it and added it to the article. Anomie⚔ 11:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you should probably thank Drkirby. I came by the document type through an edit of theirs a couple days earlier. To be honest, though, I suspect that I could've saved myself the work if I just waited an hour. Dancter (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Confused

[3]

What? I totally fail to see how that implies that the DS is in second place. I'm not going to blindly revert because I don't want to get in an edit war, but I really do not understand why you reremoved the sentence. Thingg^⊕⊗ 18:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it implies that the DS is in second place. For my reasoning, you may want to refer to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#However, although, whereas, despite. Before you say anything about the fact that "but" is not one of the words in there, please consider the principle of the guideline. The phrasing of the sentence sets up a comparison between the two facts in the sentence. Since "faced stiff competition" is not a positive fact, the use of the word "but" contrasts the following fact as more favorable, which is misleading. Dancter (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

heh. And I was just coming here to tell you that I've thought it over and you were right.... I didn't realize you had replied here. So yeah, you're right and thanks for removing it. :) Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hello Dancter,

I have noticed that you revert quite a bit of vandalism. Since you have demonstrated that you have a good grasp of what constitutes vandalism, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Written Like a News Source?

Hi Dancter, I was hoping you could give me some more information as to how the BCC Research Article was written like a news source? I'd like to amend this. Or at least get someone to help put the article on the right path. Thanks Stuartfost (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just not encyclopedic material. It's a bulleted list of products with brief descriptions, many of which are redundant with the title. Real paragraphs of integrated prose would be much preferable. Also, it would help if you didn't have blatantly promotional language such as "Explore how this ground-breaking technology will spur growth in various markets".

Take a look at BAE Systems, a featured article on Wikipedia. The article does not describe its products item-by-item, and the coverage of products is but a small section of a balanced general overview of the company. The notability of the content is established not only by the existence of independent third-party references, but by the fact that those references could be used to directly verify that content. If such material is difficult to find for your article, then it's very likely that there isn't much that should be written about the subject. If you want an encyclopedia article, you should endeavor to build an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for merely republishing what's on your website. Dancter (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dancter, I was trying to reduce the amount of advertising, and I guess I missed that section...my bad. The reason I kept the description to a minimum was to have initially a stable page to work from that would meet Wiki guidelines. I have plenty of verifiable sources/information about BCC Research. I was trying to be as spartan as possible in my description however. Thanks for your input. I will continue to work on this site and develop it so it can become a better encyclopedia article. Stuartfost (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

National Academies Press

I don't understand why you taking out the external links that im providing for the articles.Pganas 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're plastering links to your site everywhere, often indiscriminately, such as adding the same link about human cloning to both the human cloning article and the cloning article, or adding the same link about medical innovation to both the article about health care reform in the United States‎ and the one about health care in the United States‎ in general. The rapid serial linking activity is normally indicative of a SEO/promotional intent, as is the presence of tracking code in the URLs. The edits I undid were mostly bare additions of links that did not accompany any meaningful contributions to the main article. You are welcome to discuss the inclusion of your links with other editors in the articles' talk pages.

I've tried to be respectful of cases in which you made substantive contributions to Wikipedia article content, but even the brief sentence you added to many of the plant articles is vague and often awkwardly-introduced boilerplate. Most of the references you cited for that sentence didn't even specify specific page numbers for the passages which would verify it, merely pointing to the chapter start. It's as if the statement were merely an excuse for including another link to the National Academies Press site. It's more work to clean up after your contributions than you are doing to make them in the first place.

Wikipedia is not a directory. Many articles are cluttered with excessive links as it is. The project is not hurting for links; plenty of people come to the site wanting to add their useful links to the site. The meat of the project is article text. You've contributed a little bit in that area. I'm not planning on touching any of that. Dancter (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if this is the incorrect way to reply to a talk post. We agree with your comments and admit to a lack of experience in posting on Wikipedia. Many of the Wikipedia pages we identified are indeed too general for links to individual reports, and we will work to find more relevant entries. We would particularly appreciate guidance on the crop listings. We have published three encyclopedic books summarizing the characteristics of many little-known African grains, fruits, and vegetables (with a chapter on each crop). We would be glad to post the full chapter for each crop, but many are over 5,000 words, and that may be too long. In cases where the crop does not already have an entry on Wikipedia, the full chapter might be useful. But where an entry already exists, we are unclear whether to try to integrate our text into what is already on the page, or post it separately. We need a better understanding of how to integrate content with pre-existing content, and how to cite it appropriately. Any guidance you could provide would be much appreciated.Pganas (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of "Further reading" additions, so long as a document reference is added to just the most relevant Wikipedia article, I think that would suffice. It doesn't need to be a perfect fit.

Integrating information into Wikipedia articles can be a bit of work, especially where there is already some good pre-existing content. Directly copying large amounts of text isn't the favored approach, usually because the text is not offered under a license compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL, but also because the text was probably developed with a different purpose, style, or focus than would be appropriate in a general encyclopedia. Sometimes it's acceptable, though; editors occasionally do this with the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition because it is now in the public domain.

I was already quite a ways into editing your contributions before I noticed the new articles you created. Those are probably the most valuable of your contributions, but I imagine also the most time-consuming. Sometimes it just takes a little extra time to see what information is missing or what source is needed to verify a fact. It's also worth keeping in mind that Wikipedia articles are works in progress. New articles don't need to be perfect, and editors are encouraged to be bold in editing, as it's the best way to learn how the project works. If you hadn't already checked them out, it may be worth exploring some of the resources TimVickers pointed out in his welcome message to you to learn more. Feel free to ask me any particular questions you may have. Dancter (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

EyePet

Regarding this revert, there's no need to get shirty, considering the game's release media is not cited anywhere in the article. Perhaps you'd like to provide one as I cannot find this "guy from SCE London" anywhere. Cheers. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I just couldn't find any published information on the game's release media anywhere, and thus found it odd to insist on it being a download release. The comment was based on the fact that the reverted edit was from an IP address registered to London Studio, where I presume that such information would be known. Dancter (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I have removed that part of the infobox for now as it would probably be best to not have it at all than to have possibly incorrect information. Agree? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I'm amused by the notability banner, though. Granted, not much is known at the moment, but I'm not used to seeing it on that sort of article. Dancter (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I was too! I've started a discussion on the talk page if you would like to join in? I'll also invite the person who put the template on there to have a look too. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Embedded lists

Hi Dancter! You complain about "embedded lists" in the article on Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel. I don't quite see the point. I mean, don't you expect something remotely similar to a "list", when the headline of a chapter reads "Select List of publications", "List of TV programmes" or "Select list of interviews"? Snemelc (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you don't expect over half of space in an encyclopedia article to consist of lists. That's not including the lists in the "Notes" section, which push the portion to ¾. I doubt that interviews are part of what makes this person noteworthy, so I don't see why they should be covered. To reference a simple claim on "The True Face of William Shakespeare", instead of a plain bibliographic footnote like you would find in most articles, there seems to be a comprehensive catalog of things related to the book. Other claims about the subject's books have similar notes, two of which list Amazon.com reviews as if that's worth pointing out. I haven't checked, but I doubt that any of our featured articles are so list-heavy. This is just about the issue of lists. I haven't even addressed the issue of encyclopedic tone. Dancter (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, there should be a solution to the problem of extent! CU! Snemelc (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Community Gardening - and guerilla gardning

Why are you not interested in films about the subject? they are indipendet - nobody is earning money with it the literature is much more comercial on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wissende10 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed it from all the articles but community gardening per WP:LINKSTOAVOID item #13 ("Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject"), as the site primarily discusses community gardening, with only secondary coverage of the other subjects for which you added your link (only one mention of guerrilla gardening on the site). Upon closer examination, I removed it from the community gardening article as well, per guideline item #5 ("Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services"), as the main purpose of the link (the films, as indicated by the link description you provided) was products for sale. Alternatively, the link could be categorized under "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content", which fall under item #6 of the guideline. The guideline does not distinguish non-profit cases. In any case, I reconsidered the link in the community gardening article. It is in the "External links" section with the formatting adjusted. Dancter (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion for PS2 edits

Hello it is mcjakeqcool the PS2 is slipping towards the competition in the Seventh Generation so i made an edit of it's history as It is now selling less than all over major consoles and is a lack of technology compared to it's competitors particuly the Xbox 360 and PS3, although i am working some information regarding the Wii to say that it is less powerfull than the PS3 and Xbox 360 but i need to get user privilege to write semi protected articles. regards Mcjakeqcool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Consoles in a different generation are not generally considered competition. I also specifically requested that you comment in the article's talk page. This is my user talk page. There are other edits that also need explaining. Dancter (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)