User talk:Delaque

Emma Vernon

Well spotted. The cut-and-paste from Carrie Preston is so crude that I have tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3 which includes "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Kartel

I moved this to AFD on behalf of the original editor, who feels that notability should have been established now. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

s for taking on mediation. What happens now? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, will try that. I have takena a copy of the page and will put forward some suggestions in the next few days. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments of Jan. 12 2009 as mediator

Please see Talk:Harold Pinter, which I've archived as you requested/suggested, leaving the link to the Mediation entry as you asked and also copying the material into archive page 6 intact. I also copied the discussion with J's comments about removing templates and J's question about the navigation template and gave it headings, as that appears to be ongoing concern.

(cont.) Please note that I have strong concerns about the "Comment" left by another user after you resolved the matter, which was added to the separate Mediation entry by a very recent editor of the article whose talk page states that s/he is not active in Wikipedia very much and that s/he might not see comments left there. That comment focuses on me as a contributor in personal terms and not on the nature of my actual edits. In my view, the comment really needs to be removed.

(cont.) The qualification "with all due respect", the very example given in WP:NPA that does not excuse personalizing comments, precedes what I regard as not a respectful comment at all, one which is based on inaccurate overgeneralizations.

(cont.) As my own user and talk pages indicate, I am a professional editor whose own publications result from forty years of experience involving attention to details of citations and references. What less professional Wikipedia editors (general readers) may view as "obsessive" is highly valued and necessary in editorial work (in peer-reviewed publications), including both journalistic and academic work.

(cont.)Moreover, contrary to the stated claim (which the commenter has no basis to make), I do not spend 24 hours/day, 7 days/week editing this article or any article in Wikipedia. That is an exaggeration.

(As already stated, I was actually away from computers entirely between 27 Dec. 2008 and 1 Jan. 2009.) I did not even see the comment in question until after spending the rest of the weekend watching the TV show 24 and my recording of the Golden Globes award ceremony.

(cont.) What is more pertinent to my editing of this article is that, as a knowledgable expert on the life and work of Harold Pinter, I have been committed to improving articles pertaining to Harold Pinter since spring 2006, when I discovered weaknesses in the main article after his winning the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature and was concerned that many general readers wanting to know more about him would be misled by such an article in Wikipedia.

(cont.) [If one looks at my contributions in Wikipedia since I began editing it in 2005, one will find that I have worked on many other articles as well, often requiring the same degree of attention to detail in improving source citations and accuracy.]

(cont.) I do not think that I should be driven away from editing this article or any other article in Wikipedia by the editor making that comment.

(cont.) Moreover, I do not "always" comment "rashly" in Wikipedia, as that commenter states (without any evidence). If anything, I am extremely careful about what I write in Wikipedia and in my own publications, not "rash" and certainly not "always rash". Those are overgeneralizations that appear to be based on one example in which the commenter was personally (over-personally) involved.

(cont.) In fact, I think very carefully about the comments that I post (as I am doing now). As per WP:BLP, it is essential that the article not be hurtful to surviving family members and friends of the subject; it must be "well-sourced" (well documented).

(cont.) I will not be commenting further in the mediation page. I will be away from my computer most of Monday, January 12 (EST).

(cont.) I do not think that my absence should be construed as further opportunities for other users to focus on me in personal terms, as opposed to focusing on edits (WP:NPA).

(cont.) I hope that as the mediator of this matter, you will monitor the comments that you welcomed and discourage any further "free for all" of inappropriate personal remarks about me or any other editor. If you see them, I would appreciate your deleting them. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

inre Christopher Rojas

WP:MUSICBIO has a long list of attributes... and if ANY ONE OF THEM applies, then the artist is accepted as notable. Even if he does not have major write-ups in the press, and even if he is part of a ensemble, if one goes down the list of attributes it would seem he meets 2 or 3 of the neccessary criteria. He does pass WP:N per the applicable guideline. Or am I crazy here? Or is the guideline somehow wrong? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the credits list on the all music guide link I provided at the AFD, you'll see he is not just a producer... he is also a musician and songwriter. Producer is only one of his hats. He passes WP:MUSICBIO with flying colors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Even disregarding the production and engineer stuff, as a violinist and keyboardist on a platinum album, he specifically qualifies as part of the ensemble... per WP:MUSICBIO. I guess I'll be seeing everyone at DRV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. You are mis-reading WP:MUSICBIO which specificaly states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:". As a musician, and part of the ensemble or band, he qualifies under the guideline. Again, see you at the DRV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a work-in-process that I'd like you to opine on. It ain't finished by a long shot... mostly, I'd like your input on format. User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Christopher Rojas Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I seemed to have missed your request. Would you rather I comment on your sandbox page or the article talk page henceforth? Unfortunately, it is way past my bedtime, so I will have to sleep on it before adding any additional comments. Delaque (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As you might have noticed... I'm working on it... even as I type. I will do my best to address your concerns. But many at the AfD have opinined and moved on. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your heartfelt wishes expressed here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On Harold Pinter

Dear Delaque, thank you for your message. Frankly, I do not wish to spend any time on the issue so that if you believe that I have unjustly "attacked" User:NYScholar, then you have my permission to remove my Comment (in such event, please kindly replace my Comment with the message: "Removed with the explicit permission of its writer."). I should add that NYScholar's behaviour is just depressing to me: add one comma to the biography of Harold Pinter, and s/he makes you writing ten pages of commentary on that. S/he has also the ungainly habit of manipulating with one's signed Comments, at times even moving them from one talk page to another, claiming that the writer has not placed his or her Comment on the "right" talk page. As I wrote in my latest Comment, I do not believe that NYScholar is a malevolent person, but that s/he behaves as though s/he possessed the entry. In this connection, I should like to remind you of the saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Please just take the trouble and count the number of words that I have been made to type (including the words in the present message) for having had the temerity to insert an obituary into the biography of Harlod Pinter. This is totally unacceptable (the person is taking people hostage to her/his whim), and in my considered opinion it is now time to call a spade a spade. I emphasise, I do not wish to have anything to do with NYScholar and what s/he does or does not do on Wikipedia; certainly, I have nothing against her/him as a fellow human being (you could even verify that I have invariably explicitly thanked her/him when s/he has apologised). Kind regards, --BF 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

Dear Delaque, thank you for your message. Unfortunately for the case at hand, I am not in the habit of retracting my words, in particular in the cases where I believe that I have chosen my words very carefully. Let us take the word "rashly", to which you apparently object. User:NYScholar first deleted my addition to the biography of Pinter. After protesting, s/he placed the addition in the entry "Bibliography". After protesting that "Obituaries" do not belong to this section, s/he brought back my addition to where I had placed it first. After doing so, s/he also apologised for her/his actions. If this is not a manifestation of a rash behaviour, then I do not know what is. Please also consider that when s/he responds to one's comments, s/he does so with five or six consecutive comments, written at intervals of one minute or so (suggesting that s/he really does not take the time to think about matters; s/he just responds to her/his impulsive urges — this would not be as bad, were it not that NYScholar's comments inundate one's original comment, making that one's comment is not seen by any other person who might chance the talk page). These are not all: s/he removed my comments from one talk page to another (not once, but two or three times!), stating that I had not placed these on the right page. Then s/he started to remove sentences from my signed comments, etc. In short, I strongly felt that I was being harassed by NYScholar. I believe that as editor you may also consider that interests of a group of people should be given preference to those of an individual. As it stands, in the case at hand a single person is making life a hell for almost any individual who dares add a comma to the biography of Pinter. Incidentally, NYScholar is not exceptional on Wikipedia: I have experienced the same behaviour with someone who similarly feels to own the biography of Albert Einstein — the sad thing is that this person knows nothing about Einstein's works (he similarly made my life a hell, until I decided that it was not worthwhile to fight a losing battle with someone who is utterly irrational; this person had the habit of finding one's most benign remarks "offensive"; only God knows how many times had I to assure him/her that I did not mean offence). I believe that NYScholar should be asked to leave the biography of Pinter to others, at least for a length of time, say three months (all s/he needs to do is, unwatching the entry and like someone addicted to drugs undergo a difficult and painful period of detoxification — the compulsive behaviour of NYScholar is very typical of those who suffer from acute forms of addiction). Kind regards, --BF 15:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Warning placed on above user's talk page

Please see: User talk:BehnamFarid#January 2009 and please remove the above user's personal attacks against me throughout the mediation page and this and other talk pages. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Delaque, please get me out of this ungainly business!!! Now I am being accused of "Disruptive behaviour"! For heaven's sake, this is madhouse! I have repeatedly told that I have no desire to get involved in this ugly business, now I being served with threatening messages for "disruptive behaviour". What "disruption"? I was asked to present my opinion, as to whether User:NYScholar's behaviour conforms with what is expected from Wikipedia editors, and I just gave my opinion. It seems that describing a disruptive behaviour (which I did) is considered to constitute a disruptive behaviour by itself! (Nowhere have I attacked; I only gave a true report of my bitter experience for having had the temerity to insert a line in the biography of Harold Pinter. All my statements can be shown to be true by inspecting the pages of "Harold Pinter" and its associated talk page.) I emphasise, I am absolutely not interested in what NYScholar does or does not do on Wikipedia. --BF 20:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Attn Delaque

Attn Delaque: (Updated) This [particular] dispute (relating to Harold Pinter) was apparently resolved to the satisfaction of the user initiating it (Jezhotwells) some time ago now, and this mediation page needs to be closed.

(cont.) For the record: I still object to the repetitions of undocumented claims about me left in the mediation page (without "diffs." being posted as required) by the above user (BF), I still think that they should be removed (at the very least struck out), and that the material should not be left unchallenged in Wikipedia. What are called "facts" and "a true report" have no basis in "diffs." (no "diffs." were given by that user [BF]), the actual edits were adequately explained (by me) initially (in both edit summaries and on the various article talk pages), the apparent desire for an apology was met and accepted (graciously initially) by the above user, and yet the user reiterated the same misinformation again about what were actually legitimate format changes (supported by Wikipedia talk page guidelines) later.

(cont.) For the record further: Wikipedia talkpage guidelines enable editors to remove irrelevant material from article talk pages as per talkpage header. One comment was removed and moved to a more appropriate article talk page, with only potential copyright violations (YouTube links) deleted (as is Wikipedia copyright policy). The other matter simply involved correcting bibliographical format (and was clearly supported by the article's Style Sheet on the talk page. Neither of the two edits involving the above user were personal in any way or done in any personal manner.

(cont.) On the manner of BF's comments above and elsewhere: Presenting a requested "opinion" does not require casting personal psychological aspersions on other editors in doing so. The personal aspersions violate explicit Wikipedia etiquette and civility and talk page guidelines. There are unoffensive and neutral ways to present one's own "opinion" (subjective viewpoint) about edits. Wikipedia guidelines explicitly recommend not to take mere formatting changes in Wikipedia articles or talk pages personally. In my view, the above editor (BF) has overreacted to mere format changes with heated rhetoric and exaggerated statements and charges of a personal nature that have no basis in factual "diffs." relating to the specific edits cited. I have already provided the "diffs." elsewhere (explaining that I could not view more than one editing history page at a time and have been limited in my ability to supply more of them). Anyone can examine the editing history of Harold Pinter and its archived talk pages to see the particular edits involved, however; the two editing changes do not justify the above response (in my view).

(cont.) Again: This matter needs to be closed and the offensive personal comments about other editors removed. --NYScholar (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC) [Repeated my requests below and updated here. --NYScholar (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)]

Article is being deleted

Please comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Rojas (2nd nomination)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL travb (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Avengers Members article mediation

Thanks for the offer for moderation of the List of Avengers Members dispute. I reorganized the talk page to better show the current dispute to the New Source section as indicated on the Mediation page. Additional, the Darkhawk dispute is still "open" on that page. Spshu (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please scroll up

To #Attn Delaque:

Could you please see my earlier requests, delete or cross out the unnecessary personal characterizations, and close this stale matter relating to Harold Pinter? I don't know if you are checking this talk page, and if I don't get a response here (not on my talk page please), I will ask for some administrative assistance if possible from my mentor or someone who is more actively checking their talk pages in Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pinter

I believe you are familiar with User:NYScholar. Please see this and comment if you can. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)