User talk:GDallimore/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

IMDb reliability as a separate issue

Good on ya for redirecting the IMDb reliability discussion to Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb#New discussion (November 2008). FYI, before you did that I brought up the subject at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is IMDb an unreliable source?. Since over the years I've hardly ever participated as a community member, logging in rarely and preferring to focus on self-contained, mostly non-controversial contributions to articles, I wanted to highlight a few things to you that you may or may not find useful.

After reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 21#External links in film infoboxes, I'm pretty sure that questions of IMDb reliability was a secondary issue for some editors (in spite of comments from some editors in the consensus summary).

With respect to accuracy, I am influenced by the fact (previously mentioned) that IMDb gets WGA writing credits, MPAA ratings, Grosses, Film Statistics, and Production Notes from partners (see this). As also pointed out, IMDb comments on its accuracy at "Where our information comes from", which highlights accuracy issues "especially on yet-unreleased films").

I suspect that the latest round of discussion might end up pretty close to Wikipedia:Citing IMDb#What this means from 2007, which says:

The IMDb tends to be strong with regards to hard facts about films which have been released and remain in good circulation – this is probably a function of the non-controversial objective facts combined with the large number of users watching the site and the popularity of such films. Therefore, the IMDb can be considered an acceptable source for things such as release dates, technical specs, credits, and anything else of this nature. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.

The IMDb tends to be weak, or the least, more open for abuse or mis-attribution when discussing less objective matters such as anecdotes and trivia, as well as films which have not yet been released to the general public.

With all of this in mind, I boldly tried to make this change to the Template:Infobox Film/doc#History you wrote. Collectonian (talk · contribs), an editor whose position on IMDb reliability is clear from the consensus summary, reverted it seven minutes later.

Good luck with all of this. I will check your talk page in a couple of days in case you choose to reply. :-) 72.244.206.182 (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the comments. My view on IMDb is that it will be necessary to find a balance as to what information is and is not reliable, but people currently aren't engaging in that way but are going for a black and white reliable/unreliable approach. I think the summary you quote above is pretty good, but there's nothing in the current discussions that's supporting that summary and confirming that these facts are indeed reliable and are checked in some way by the publishers of IMDb. I think it's pretty clear that they are but it's not beyond doubt. Consequently, I think the whole discussion is doomed to failure.

As for your edits to the infobox doc page, I support the reversion I'm afraid. I think what the doc currently says is accurate since people don't use IMDb as a reliable source (even if they could!). Also, since the issue of reliability has been raised by so many people, I think at least a mention of it is needed so that it doesn't look like it has been forgotten. Do that and someone might try to add it in as a reason for removing IMDb from the infobox which will open a can of worms - I think it's important not just to be accurate in something, but to foreclose people from drawing innacurate assumptions on the basis of missing information.

All the best. GDallimore (Talk) 12:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of Baby P

Oh, thanks, didn't notice it was in the lead. — neuro^(talk) 18:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

s'ok. Thanks for helping out with the article. Not really sure why I've got myself involved with it - not my thing really. Perhaps I don't like the reactionary journalism that's going on and want to make sure this article remains more moderate. All the best. GDallimore (Talk) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any reference to show the mother was arrested in May. I have that the Police were investigating the events of Dec and June (nothing from May). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's in the BBC article. End of the section on May 2007. GDallimore (Talk) 11:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - missed that . Wonder why its not mentioned in the Serious Case Review. Did Haringey Council deliberately omit it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also possible the BBC made a mistake. I suggest that if we find anything contradicting it, we remove the statement as being of doubtful validity. GDallimore (Talk) 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The BBC didn't make a mistake and the Serious Case Review didn't include it because the arrest was separate to Baby P. More explanations will come over time.

Meehan and Santry have resigned because of the resport. They were given the report earlier on Monday morning along with Ed Balls and resigned after the publication of the report - what else are you looking for ?

Just because two things happen at about the same time doesn't necessarily mean that one caused the other. At present, we have absolutely no idea why they resigned. Let's not jump the gun - we're not trying to beat the newspapers in getting the info out the fastest. GDallimore (Talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I just refreshed the BBC website and now it's clearer what has happened and why. Now we can amend the article with some level of certainty. GDallimore (Talk) 14:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bow ties

You commented in the bow tie deletion debate that you thought it should be submitted for GA review. Are you aware the DRV overturned the deletion as "no consensus?"--otherlleft (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 22:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of Baby P reference

Hi - Re my edit here I was getting a 404 error from the beeb website when I clicked on the link. So I found the article through their search engine and put that URL in. Not sure why they have several URLs for the same article some of which don't always work! Not that it matters much - I'm just commenting because your edit summary changing the link again indicated curiosity. -- SiobhanHansa 18:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange... and thanks. I assume it's working for you now? GDallimore (Talk) 10:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The current link works for me - although for me it redirects to the link I put in (which seems odd given your edit summary comment that the link I put in redirects to this current one). I wonder if its because I'm reading from the US. I know they use some geographic identification of IPs to decide whether to show video to a viewer or not. In any case, it all works now fine from my perspective. -- SiobhanHansa 12:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Well, not sensible, but it's an explanation! GDallimore (Talk) 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The 3 written warning are mentioned in the Serious Case Review - already referenced - do I add another reference to this ?

Who has seen the full details of the Serious Case Review and the requirement to sign a NDA is statement made by a council official in the Full Council Meeting of 24th November. This is currently available as a webcast at the moment (minutes get posted in time). Should I provide a like to the webcase ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.174 (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please (for both). With an article that sensitive, I think we should be aiming for a reference for pretty much every single sentence. Of course, if the information is only available under NDA, it shouldn't be in the article! GDallimore (Talk) 09:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

These details are available under publicly held documents - will add the links. How do I add a seconf reference to the same document ? (Note: Some interested parties are cautious about seeing the documents if they have to sign the NDA). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 09:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Lesson in wikicode coming up! :)

Find the reference that you need to repeate which will be in format something like <ref>Reference information</ref>. In the first <ref> tag add: name="myname". Choose something sensible and short for "myname" like, "webcast" or "SCReview" (for Serious Case Review). So the reference ends up looking like this: <ref name="SCReview">Reference information</ref>.

Next, find the other place or places where you want to add that reference and put <ref name="SCReview" />. Note that there is only one "ref" tag and it is vitally important that you include the "/" at the end of the tag inside the bracket or you'll end up swallowing half the article into the reference! Good luck. This is a great lesson to learn if you want to start doing more Wiki editing. GDallimore (Talk) 10:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments welcome

Keeping in mind that users may alays submit updates, but they are not accepted and implemented until they are vetted, would you care to coment or contibute at the new discussions at where it is being determined just what parts of IMDB might be considered "generally reliable" and which parts might not? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Charly (From DiscardedDream)

Salutations,

Thank you for your post on my talk page! It was great to hear from you.

Your candor about the situation of my editing for the article Charly was very considerate.

So thanks very much for your advice :) I will certainly take it next edit 'round.

DiscardedDream (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Help in the article about Czech Republic

Hi. I noticed you have entered the recent edit conflict in the article, that I am involved in. Your opinion would be appreciated. Please note the Czech mayor case link (going incognito posing as a tourist and being ripped of at 6:1 rate - the last link), and also that poor services are mentioned in the czech radio link. Also, I would appreciate if you looked at the other claims - as you seem someone who could help arrive at a more neutral/balanced formulation of the problems (the problems are serious enough that mayor of Prague went incognito in the taxi rip-off case, and the currency exchange boot rates are also a big issue IMO). Thanks. 78.30.163.113 (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've tried some edits. Hope they're acceptable to all. Please note, however, that this should not be seen as condoing your actions or edits which I think were almost entirely inappropriate. Please take a cool, calm approach to this editing lark. GDallimore (Talk) 12:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK templates?

Hi GDallimore, I just wanted to let you know that the set of DYK templates you created a few months back has bee listed in Category:Deprecated DYK templates because, as far as I know, they're not being used for anything. I wanted to check with you first, though, to see if you have stopped working on those templates or if the project is still ongoing, since I'm not familiar with the discussion that was going on when the templates were created. There is some more information at WT:DYK#Spring cleaning. Thanks, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. To give you some background, I made the templates after a number of people said they wanted DYK to be more like AfD. Then, when I discussed using them, everybody said they didn't want them so I gave up on them. Now, I see that the DYK process has been made more like the AfD process using a different set of templates. I'll tag my templates for deletion. GDallimore (Talk) 15:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional information re. Espacenet (FYI)

Espacenet has also recently changed their interface and the following generic call to their new SmartSearch would perhaps be perfect for all Wikipedia templates referring to patents; their server is online all day long. By the way, Espacenet covers all patents worldwide, not only US or EP:

http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=true&DB=EPODOC&query={searchItem}

Example http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?compact=true&DB=EPODOC&query=US2005123456

Notice, that patent application (US20050123456) and also publication numbers US2005123456 are both found using this new call.

--Wikinaut (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Copied to template talk page. GDallimore (Talk) 10:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing "free content" from {{FreeContentMeta}}

Hi,

I don't think this edit is appropriate, at least not without central discussion. As the documentation explains, this template is used to link to other sites on the interwiki map, which have to have the same content standards as we do. Removing the words "free content" because you came across a copyvio somewhere seems to rather miss the point - we should not be linking to sites with copyvio at all. If you think that the site in question isn't paying due diligence to copyright law then it'd be best to petition to remove it from the interwiki map (and to have the relevant extlink template deleted), rather than brushing aside the issue by removing the words "free content" from our link to it. That doesn't really absolve us from any wrongdoing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't link to blatant copyright infringement, but these sites are not blatant copyright infringement, so deletion is not necessary (although I did consider it based on the misleading title of the template). Similarly, we cannnot be certain that the content on these sites are completely free, so we should not say that it is. Simply providing the link, without additional justification, is enough. There is absolutely no need to pronounce the content at the end of the link as free so let's not do so since it potentially causes problems.

The edits I made are therefore appropriate. They are also minor, especially considering that various other wiki link templates do not pronounce the content to be free, and especially as this template does not appear to be transcluded anywhere, with the {{Wikia}} template apparently being used instead. I'm going to remove the copyleft symbol while I'm at it, which I missed in my first edit, unless you still think this is somehow objectionable.

I don't know enough of the history to do it myself, but maybe you should consider renominating this template for deprecation. GDallimore (Talk) 13:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, this doesn't seem to be the right way to go about things. All content on wikis linked from the interwiki map should be free content - if it isn't, we need to address that, rather than hiding the issue by making it less clear what kind of content we're linking to. You've rather removed the original premise of the template, which was specifically to note that the targets were free content. I'm not overly keen on the template myself, but there certainly are editors who want it - I might ping the author to see if he has any thoughts. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you miss the point that "we" can't control what's on these other wikis, so we shouldn't speak for their accuracy or vouch for their claim to be free rather than merely "fair use". GDallimore (Talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We can, however, control whether or not they qualify for the interwiki map. It'd be better to maintain quality there than to try to control it downstream. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Implied license

PraeceptorIP asked me whether I could supply "some UK law on Implied license"? I am not an expert on this.. Would you know something about this, to expand the article? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, either - licenCes aren't my thing, and I keep on getting thrown by the US "misspelling" of the word :). Nevertheless, I've tried a couple of edits to tidy the article and to add an example from one of my old textbooks.

In doing this, I noticed a couple of other things that might be worth writing articles on:

• Commissioning of copyrighted works
• Employee invention (see [1][2]), into which shop right might be merged.

I'll probably look at employee inventions at some point when I get a moment, but let me know if you decide to kickstart it. Have fun. GDallimore (Talk) 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Business method claims

Rather than totally delete this item, perhaps you might want to go over the material you slated for deletion in Business method claims and determine whether any of it is worth being added (moved) to the Business method patent article. There may be something of value in there--perhaps not. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That article already discusses state street bank and bilski, which also have their own articles, so I really don't think anything has been lost. I also cannot imagine that there is anything particularly special about the way a business method is claimed. There might be something special in claiming a business method so it doesn't look like a business method, but that just goes under the heading of typical attorney practice: if you've got something black, and black won't do, try to make it look white. GDallimore (Talk) 22:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and Punctuation on Patent Troll Article

Punctuation almost always goes inside quotations in US English composition, please do not undo my editing on these changes. http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_quote.html {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) Thanks. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 14:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I already pointed you to the relevant Wikipedia guideline: WP:Punctuation. "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. This practice is referred to as logical quotation; it is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing." This is not a US v GB English thing. GDallimore (Talk) 19:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Bowen

I'm not sure if you've noticed the change of link in the Balen bit, or the last paragraphs at the bottom of that: [3]. It's weak, but for what's currently written, it's probably enough. Rd232 ^talk 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I put it into the career section. The point I've been trying to get across is that it's nothing to do with the ESC report so does not belong in that section. Putting it in that section is implying some sort of connection which is original research and halfway towards the contentious point the anon editor is trying to push that the ESC report somehow jeopardises Bowen's position as Middle East editor. GDallimore (Talk) 18:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have put no point forward besides the very words of the complainants in response to the report at hand. I would greatly appreciate an explanation for why Jonathan Turner's words should be excised. And let me clarify: a *valid* explanation, not one that asserts that he is an unreliable source on his own opinion, or that in your opinion his opinion is invalid.

I am only writing a response here to highlight a lie in the above: "I have put no point forward besides the very words of the complainants." In the above discussion, rd232 and I were discussing your separate edits to the article saying that Bowen's position as Middle East editor was somehow threatened - this was not sourced and has been rightly removed. You also tried to create some sort of link between the Balen report and the ESC report, which was also not sourced and has rightly been removed. This issue of Turner's statements is completely separate from the issue rd232 and I were discussing above so do not try to confuse the issue.

This is a grave distortion of events to serve your own biases. I provided corroborated evidence of a link between Bowen's appointment and the Balen report to provide context, and this threat was indeed highlighted in the Guardian article to which rd232 agreed. But of course you are once again interpreting history selectively for the purpose of presenting me as a biased party and proclaiming the mantle of objectivity. This idealism does not reflect reality, where you actively censor criticism of the report that states that the ESC recommendations were not enough or that the BBC's actions were not enough, all while actively attempting to downplay the impact of the report. The unsubtle methodology here is to decry other peoples' sources as "unreliable," and, when that fails, to claim that a causal connection demonstrated by third parties is some form of editorializing. This is why a third party's mediation is necessary on the subject.

On the Turner issue, I did not say he was an unreliable source on his own opinion, I said he was not a reliable source to comment on Bowen. Big, important difference, that you seem unable to grasp and I will not waste any more of my time trying to explain the obvious to you. GDallimore (Talk) 11:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Conveniently, the discussion at hand is over the ESC report and ensuing fiasco. Here you feel perfectly willing to discriminate over who has the right to comment on the outcome of the report, and discrimination is certainly the name of the game when it comes to what criticism you choose to present over the report. You reflexively refuse to "waste any more time" substantiating your argument beyond a subjective and entirely arbitrary selection of what is and is not relevant, all while pointing to pages citing rules which are inconsistent with your claims. I am fully in support of arbitration on the issue because I am confident that you are obfuscating facts for a biased purpose, consciously or not.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jeremy_Bowen. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 138.40.65.18 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

Hi. I've made 11 edits (12 including this one). Why am I not yet autoconfirmed??? Unhappy Goff (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't been following this autoconfirm stuff. Whatever, it does not give you an excuse to add nonsense to articles. Contribute constructively and good things will come. Act like a vandal and you'll be blocked before you get a chance. GDallimore (Talk) 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:EPO patents 1998-2007.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:EPO patents 1998-2007.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think you added this tag in error. The terms of use are linked to in the info table. GDallimore (Talk) 09:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't in reference to the data itself. The image page says that you made the chart yourself. Thus, you'd need to release the actual image of the chart under a license such as the GFDL or Creative Commons; or, you could release it as public domain. Radiant chains (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I can't do that because I have no rights to release. The terms of use say that I cannot claim any copyright in works derived from information obtained from the EPO site. Scrub that (I've left it in so you could see that I wasn't just removing your tag without thinking, even if my original thinking was wrong). Just re-read the terms - I cannot claim ownership of the materials from the EPO site but, of course, that doesn't mean I don't have rights in my particular representation. I will update the table to release that portion of the rights into PD. GDallimore (Talk) 12:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo on your clean up of the Ng page

Ever since that name was made famous by Obama's relatives, there has been more and more stuff added willy-nilly. Kudos to your decisive action. Another name, Deep Ng, buried out of alphabetical order is also a suspect. On his page the external links are either broken or linked to an Ad. The filmography listed are all of 3rd rate, but he's not even listed in the main acting cast. Maybe his notability should be confined to a regional interest in HK, via their Chinese wiki page.--EJohn59 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

Thanks. Happy editing! GDallimore (Talk) 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Claims -- indents or HTML

Regarding the indents that you removed, is there some way perhaps other than use of HTML to provide an indent for a subtopic? The difference in font size (from == to ===) is not enough to be noticed, and without indents the material does not read well--it just looks confusing. Normally, for example in briefs, the successive levels of subdivision have increasing indentation: I A 1 a, etc. -- to make clear that A B C D, for example, are subdivisions of I...and so on. Is it not possible to find (and use) some such expedient when the discussion has enough complexity to justify helping the reader out with such a crutch? PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is that you can't. So I've split the entire section off into a new article. It was getting too unwieldy with all the sections and subsections. How's it looking now? GDallimore (Talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It still looks confusing, but you are going to say that's a Wiki feature, not a bug. OK.

You might consider stripping most of the very long Beauregard discussion off into an article on In re Beauregard which is in the red now. Also, whoever wrote about its "general acceptance" was too optimistic and has not read BPAI decisions after Bilski, which almost uniformly reject such claims. See also Judge Patel's opinion in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions Inc. (N.D. Cal., Civ. No. 04-cv-03268, March 23, 2009), 2009 WL 815448. (The latter is, I think, the only court decision on validity of Beauregard claims.) PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a topic I know or care about. Looks like some weird US thing that I'd rather ignore or I'll just get frustrated by how lawer-like US practice is - definitely don't get me started on means+function post Festo. :) GDallimore (Talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I know how you want to contribute to this encyclopedia, but you are about to violate the Three Revert Rule and are WP:Edit Warring. Please let someone else revert it or you could get blocked. --Brad Polard (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting completely inappropriate, POV edits added by an editor who doesn't have the courtesy to pay attention to an attempt at discussion and accusing someone who disagrees with them a vandal is not edit warring, but troll management. GDallimore (Talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And I notice that particular troll has now been blocked. GDallimore (Talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Plotutils

Hello GDallimore, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Plotutils has been removed. It was removed by Piccolist with the following edit summary '(added some explanation and external links for projects and packages which relate to plotutils.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Piccolist before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Steorn

This took about 30 seconds and who do we find listed under Electrical and Computer Engineering - Professors Emeriti, why it's RI MacDonald, PhD, PEng... best of luck with that page... --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, I've been around long enough to know not to feed a troll. Hard to say in retrospect whether he would have simply breached 3RR; if not, though, it was definitely worth bringing it to other people's attention. I'm honoured to be considered your sockpuppet! --McGeddon (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-feeding always a good thing to remember. And thanks for making me laugh, although I think you're the puppetmaster. GDallimore (Talk) 16:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Experiment in Better Patent Examination

GD,

Are you interested in participating in a wiki-based experiment in better patent examination? If so, feel free to contact me.--Nowa (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons

The reason for tagging is so that other editors get a chance to fix it, not just the deleting editor. We don't have to be perfect, everywhere, everytime (and for when we do, there's WP:BLP). Tagging as "ARRANT NONSENSE" should be enough to drop the hint to readers, especially if the text has already been there unchallenged and untagged for ages.

As to the issue itself, then yes it's a real one (RELs are part of my day job at present). If you have to share-alike a mashup from across two licences, then which one should it be shared-alike under? I'll try to source useful refs on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If something's clearly wrong it's best to just remove it. This doesn't in any way prevent another editor from coming along and adding the correct information. The best wikipedia articles start with proper research outside of wikipedia and adding appropriate information based on that research, not by trying to fix what's already there. Wrong or misleading information has a habit of hanging around.

That's not to say this isn't an important point, but because of its importance, it's best to get it right. In particular, merely because two licences are different, that doesn't make them incompatible and it would be unfair to suggest that they are since it implies that it is a significant or common weakness of CC.

Ultimately, I only made my edits in passing while on a random wiki-jaunt and don't have the knowledge to pursue it further or the desire to research it further. I've made my point and my comments and leave it to you and any other interested editors to take this article forward. Best of luck. GDallimore (Talk) 15:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that the "something's clearly wrong" test isn't reliable, especially when "in passing while on a random wiki-jaunt". There is an incompatibility here, and although it's "clearly" wrong it's actually correct (and horribly unclear) if you're a subject expert. I note that another editor has since added refs to that effect. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Data Treasury

GD, there is a new user trying to put unsourced information about DataTreasury in the article. I've reverted once and have been reverted back.

Would you do the honors and revert again? (unless you disagree).--Nowa (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Nowa (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Non Sequitur

I truly don't see how the YouTube video I added "tremendously" violates Wikipedia guidelines for external references. Please also see my discussion here with User McGeddon, who first deleted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:McGeddon#Why_remove_external_link_on_Non_Sequitur.3F

StrangeAttractor (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a completely useless, unreliable, copyright infringing, puerile external link with no merit whatsoever. I've added some links that MIGHT be useful to making this into a worthwhile article rather than the poorly written dictionary definition that it currently is. GDallimore (Talk) 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"It's a completely useless, unreliable, copyright infringing, puerile external link with no merit whatsoever." I very much disagree with you on every count you mention in the statement quoted. I'd be willing to debate each point one by one, if I were convinced that you were seriously interested, rather than looking for things to delete. (The most pertinent, given Wikipedia's explicit policy of respecting strictest interpretation of the DMCA and CTEA policies on intellectual property, would be the copyright issue -- please make an argument as to how this is not clearly covered by "fair use" when used in derivative works parodizing the original.)

BTW, I do not know the creators of the video, and have no vested interest in the video or its creators whatsoever. It is my qualified opinion, however, as someone with a professional level of expertise in English literature, that the video offers almost as pure an example of a sustained series of non sequiturs as I have encountered.

As ridiculous as it may seem to you, this is a good faith effort on my part to include a resource that I think serves as an accurate example of the literary device described, and frankly much more enlightening than the syllogistic, simplistic examples given in the article.

I happen to think that this is a rather important literary device, particularly from the 20th century forward, and -- since Wikipedia for better or worse has become the de facto resource on introductory research -- therefore deserves to offer its readers at least a cursory hint of what non sequiturs actually are.

(The device should *not* be simply conflated with Surrealism or Dadaism, although both those movements (particularly the latter) made use of it; it is not about merely making nonsense, nor about the subversion of logic, as, for example, the humor of Lewis Carroll relies upon. Closer to the mark are comedic groups like The Marx Brothers or Monty Python (and on occasion the writers of Family Guy); or proto-Dadaist composer Erik Satie; some examples might be made from carefully excerpted dialogues in the works of Rabelais}.

I am also curious why you think you are so qualified as to delete another editor's (minor, supplementary) addendum to the article with no preliminary discussion on the talk page whatsoever. I am not a major contributor to Wikipedia, but nonetheless, I have been making good faith edits since almost the beginning, under a single username and single account. StrangeAttractor (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks the man protests too much. If you're a literature expert, why not spend your efforts going through your library and finding some books that actually discuss the development and use of non sequiturs as a literary device, which would assist the article no end, rather than linking to puerlie videos on YouTube, which does not. GDallimore (Talk) 10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because I'm not inclined to put that much energy into something that's just going to be hacked apart by a bunch of half-educated rubes. Yeah, I know, that's practically Wikipedia's mission statement, so I don't participate much. StrangeAttractor (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly and educator at heart, then. Sod off if you're not going to be constructive. GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shaiya

Hello GDallimore, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Shaiya - a page you tagged - because: Criterion A7 only applies to web content such as browser games, not regular games. Use PROD or AfD to pursue deletion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it would apply as a game that is marketed, distributed and played solely over the Internet. It's only a "regular" game in the sense that there is something to download to your computer. GDallimore (Talk) 13:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I recall this being the subject of some discussion at WT:CSD. A7 may apply to web content, but not necessarily internet content. From what I can see it is a stand-alone application and not, as such, a "web-based" game. Hope that made sense. decltype (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Addendum: I see now that the article has been deleted under A7 in the past. However, this is based on a broader interpretation of "web content" than current consensus. decltype (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I would like to thank you for all the work you did with Let the Right One in, which occured before I became seriously involved with Wikipedia. I encourage you to list it under Good articles on your user page if you wish (not that you would need anyone's permission to do so in the first place, of course). Regards, decltype (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nommed Shaiya for deletion anyway. As for Let the Right One In. Thanks, although I left the article after a fractious war of words with another editor. Can't handle conflict... Looking at the article again, I still think the plot section needs work (too detailed in parts) and the screenplay section still have some OR issues - brining in other people's interpretations rather than sticking to the sources. That's just my opinion, though. GDallimore (Talk) 14:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, AfD would definitely be the right venue. Ah yes, the gender issue. Yes, it's unfortunate that so much energy was spent debating this — and it's too bad that you no longer wish to contribute to the article because of it. Regards, decltype (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaiya

I found notability easy. Joe Chill (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Barely, if at all, I would say. But at least you found something. I've left my comments at the nomination. GDallimore (Talk) 16:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)