Jump to content

User talk:I JethroBT/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln (2012 film)

I feel a redirect at this time is far better than an outright deletion, as it saves the history until such time as the topic might become notable enough for a seperate article. However, I believe a merge places too much extraneous information in the Speilberg bio. Your thoughts? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could just settle for a selective merge. Not everything from the article needs to be put into Spielberg's page. I agree there is a little information on it already, but regarding the lead actors changing hands, budgetary information, and the fact that John Williams is composing the music are a few examples of what could supplement the few current sentences about the film. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwon Hyi-ro

Thanks for adding this one to the defaultsort lists.[1] I came accross it and was able to rescue it. Its now a keeper[2] with no outstanding delete opinions. Nice. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Baggage claim

I owe you one. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

inre User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines#Comments

Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I have no odds with the thought that newcomers should not have to sit there and take abuse, but I phrased the section as I did in order for a newcomer to understand that some of the things said by editors in deletion discussions may seem insulting to the unschooled when not intended to be. For example, quite recently a newcomer author took great offense to the nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Rafael Cimino by User:Steamroller Assault. It was a decent and well-reasoned nomination that clearly and politely explained his concerns. When the authour asked about it on the nominator's talk page, he explained again and in polite detail. After which explanatiion, the angry newcomer made legal threats and got herself banned. Certainly blatant rudeness by one editor to another is actionable, my own thought is that if someone more experienced bullies a newcomer, there are usually others that will intercede. But if a newcomer takes offense when none is made, and tries to return tit-for-tat, that newcomer will begin to dig themselves a very deep hole. I'd rather they avoided the pitfalls and learn that we can all get alone here (ideally). That said, I would appreciate your continued input. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, great to know it made you laugh. A pic can make all the difference. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Morris's stuff

Hi Jethrobot. My real name is Julie Cochrane (yeah, the author). I've been watching the mess over Janet Morris's Heroes in Hell series with a lot of dismay and thought I'd drop you a line.

Disclosure about me is long, so I've put it below.

Whatever the details on personalities are, I have paper copies of the first printings Heroes in Hell and Rebels in Hell here in front of me. I just looked at the copyright pages of both. Neither anthology cites any story as a reprint, and they would have had to.

Additionally, both of those books were published by Baen. Baen is a major, New York publisher and it's, as they say, not their first rodeo. I read anthologies by Baen all the time. Invariably, if a story is a reprint, it's cited that way.

This is a big, big deal---that the Hell anthology series is all original works with no reprints. It's part of the "branding." Forming a consensus on something, if your consensus goes against the plain facts---well, saying it was consensus doesn't get somebody out of a responsibility to be accurate once an error has been pointed out to them, even if the consensus doesn't like the fact.

As for COIs and puff pieces on the whole page, I've been watching this and I see it a little differently. Sure, a lot of the people doing edits developing the pages have a story in the lawyers volume or will be submitting a story for a future volume. There is no way in hell they're going to get anywhere near the dollars back that they're putting in in time. As for selling more books, they'd be better off going to a convention or two and talking it up on a couple of panels---more fun, less hassles, more sales. Wikipedia is just not that useful as a marketing tool (which I see as a good thing).

Here's why WP is getting a lot of edits on the various pages adding stuff. In the notability battle, the criticism was made that a lot of the pages were poor pages---that they were little more than stubs, lacked information, lacked depth. That criticism was taken to heart by people who liked the series and are aware of the WP wars over it. So they're trying to meaningfully address the criticism by digging up the citations and the kinds of information referenced as showing notability and adding it in---they're genuinely trying to improve the meat of the articles.

Nobody I know of is trying to lie. Nobody is trying to post false citations. If some of the award information like nominations and such enters "who cares" territory, it's still because the complaint in the pre-merge battle that stuck and resonated with the folks that liked the series was the complaint that the information on the various books was too scant. They're trying hard to document, to cite, to expand the depth of information on each book---they're trying to follow the rules in addressing substantive criticism.

And, quite frankly, what I'm seeing from a lot of more established WP editors in return is suspicion, assumptions of bad faith, and an attitude that suggests no amount of effort and care in producing sources would do.

The issue of reprints is a real good case in point. Janet Morris's personal interest is that it's a Big Deal to accuse her series of publishing reprints. She doesn't have an interest in what people think of her work, but she does have an interest that factually inaccurate and potentially damaging things like people thinking her stuff is a collection of reprints rather than all-original--that factually inaccurate and damaging information not be in an article about her and her stuff.

I get that it was *originally* an honest mistake---but it can't be passed off as an honest mistake anymore, because people have offered to scan in the copyright pages of the relevant books and thereby flat out prove there were no reprints in them.

Janet can flat prove it---she has the original contracts. At this point, if you were to ask her to scan them in (and I'll note that she only came on WP and got personally involved when the inaccurate information got potentially *damaging*), I suspect she would be more than glad to do so just to put the issue to bed (no reprints, nada, never, ever) once and for all.

We're talking about the difference in level of proof (regarding no reprints) between proof that would stand up in front of a judge (actual signed contracts) versus "proof" that is hearsay.

In general, for an encyclopedia you want secondary and tertiary sources, but when an article makes a factually inaccurate and potentially damaging claim about someone's work, and they can show you a primary source that proves your information is factually inaccurate, you have to change it. It's why news reporters say John *allegedly* murdered Marsha instead of just saying John murdered Marsha.

My actual interest in this mess is literary. My mom was a school librarian. Accuracy means something to me, and it means something to me that books get an even shake. Regarding the allegations that SPAs and COIs are trying to turn the article into a puff piece---hey, if you can find some stinkeroo reviews from when the books first came out, or if some reviewer crucifies Lawyers in Hell or crucifies later books when they come out, then by all means it's fair to include those. If C.J. Cherryh or someone else notable actually made a citable quote critical of the series, by all means add it to the article in some appropriate place--it's relevant.

But that's not what's being done. What's being done is putting the new editors who are trying to work on the page into a no-win situation where they're first criticized (with some validity) because they haven't provided *enough* relevant information to make a meaty article, and then almost vilified when they go back and do their homework and work hard to improve the article with additional information and *try* to follow WPs fairly Byzantine editing rules.

As far as COI and SPA editors, I've gotten to know some of these folks while collaborating (see my disclosure below), and a lot of them are the types to continue on using the editing knowledge they've learned to help improve other, unrelated articles on WP----several of them could become good, long term editors and make a terrific contribution if they don't get totally alienated by being treated like WP is a private club whose mind is made up, don't confuse us with the facts, "outsiders" need not apply.

The reason I'd like to see Wolfowitz recuse himself is because he seems to have gotten caught up in assuming bad faith. I'm not saying there's not plenty of crankiness on both sides. I'm saying it shouldn't be about sides, it should be about improving the article(s) according to the needs identified in prior discussions. A *true* consensus of *truly disinterested* parties formed that said, "Hey, you pro-Morris people, the sections on the individual books really do need more meat." The people who like Morris's stuff are *trying*---and trying damned hard---to act in accord with that *real* consensus.

I'm putting this on you private talk page because I'm trying to limit how much I actually become involved. That's selfish of me, I admit. I have the time to follow the discussions and form an opinion, but I do not have the time (at present) to learn how to properly edit Wikipedia articles. Too busy trying to keep a roof over my head and food on the table.

Anyway---it would be nice if the only administrators involved would be ones who were assuming good faith, if they would respect that there was a reasonable call for the articles to be improved with more information and that now a good faith attempt is being made to do just that, and if they would treat these guys as potential good new editors who are learning the ropes and--if not chased right off--might well go on to take up some of the work load.

You said drop you a line, so I did. My email is jrcochrane256@gmail.com if you have any questions about whether I am who I say I am.

Sincerely, Julie Cochrane

Disclosure about me---I'm submitting a story to the next Hell anthology, the story will probably be accepted. Now let me deal with possible COIs: 1) I'm not big on self-promotion, and you can tell that by my *not* having someone create me a Wikipedia page even though it would be dead easy to establish notability. I like Wikipedia--I use it all the time, I think the editors in general provide a valuable service, go editors, yay. It's just that self-promotion is low on my do list. I think that should reasonably establish that I don't have a self-promotion pro-Morris or pro-HiH motive. If I was self-promoting I'd promote *me*. 2) Any financial interest is minimal. Seriously, although I'll get paid for my story on a royalty basis, that's split umpteen ways and any increased sales from a listing in Wikipedia would amount to less than the price of a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I could sell more additional Adventurers in Hell books in less time by any number of other avenues. 3) Currying favor with Janet -- if I thought getting into this brouhaha would make a story more likely to sell to her, I'd avoid it like the plague. I'm not selling a story to her for the money, I'm selling a story to her because she's got a reputation as a skilled and talented editor, she's been doing this a long time, and I figure I can learn some useful things about my craft by paying attention to her edits. I *want* her to rip my work apart and tell me everything that's wrong (and right) with it. This story is taking way more hours in research and writing than it can pay back in dollars, I knew it would before I started, consider it the writer equivalent of doing the quest for the XPs, not the loot. :-) But currying favor with Janet would be counterproductive in a career sense as she's in a well-known feud with my main publisher. It's worth doing a hell story to get the short story on my list of publication credits and as a learning experience. Anyway. With even the tiniest presumption of good faith, that should dispose of conflict of interest issues. If you still have questions about any self-interest in this matter, please feel free to ask me whatever you like. I only have enough of an interest to make me aware that the WP debate is going on.

If I didn't personally think the shared universe was interesting, of course, I wouldn't be writing a story in it. Don't *most* WP editors have at least *something* about a given article that they find interesting enough to spend their time on it? Don't you pick articles you find interesting in some way when you choose what to work on?

Anyway, that's all I can think of right now that's relevant towards disclosure. Sorry it was so long, but I wanted to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewillow991967 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

More Morris

By the way, that "Guarddog" account really is Janet Morris, just like I really am Julie Cochrane. I suppose if necessary I could give you my Skype info and hold my driver's license up to the webcam, but this is getting just plain silly. I know that's Morris because I've met Morris, in person, and she's said, online, that the Guarddog account is her.

So whatever else is going on, yeah, that really is Morris.

Authors eat, sleep, breathe, and put our pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else. [grin]

Bluewillow991967 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference between a first serialization and a reprint

The difference is that there's a difference. (This is about the Morris stuff.)

It is as simple as anything to say that the relevant stories were published as first serializations in such and such a periodical on such and such a date. Badabing, badaboom, done. And that's how to put it accurately.

Specific words for specific rights mean specific things in any kind of intellectual property field.

It wouldn't matter if this were Wolfowitz personal blog, but it's not, it's an encyclopedia. So using accurate terminology when talking about intellectual property rights is important.

Contracts in writing are real specific about what rights you're selling to who and under what conditions and for how long.

A "reprint" means specific "first" rights have already been sold to somebody else or the content has been printed already in a specific way.

"First serial" rights---putting it in a magazine---aren't one of the rights that makes later ones "reprints."

I can see why Morris cares about the distinction---it has actual legal meaning that refers to actual rights and actual, real dollars.

What I can't see is why Wolfowitz cares about saying such and such a story was also published as first serial on such and such a date. What, does it not sound negative and he wants it to? That's the only thing I can think of that could spur someone to react so intensely to neutral, specific, factual wording that refers to actual intellectual property rights.

Or is he just so emotionally invested in being "right" that he's got to (whatever pretty terms he uses) call people who are pointing out that he's using the wrong word liars?

Why not just change it to use the correct terminology and move on to something else more substantive?

Bluewillow991967 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

affixing the Single-Purpose account tag to my comment

I just wanted to let you know that I feel attacked, bullied and insulted by your action.

A few years ago I set up a Wikipedia account under a pseudonym, and proceeded to create a complete Wikipedia article. It is a wholly non-controversial biography of a musician I heard once and liked, and the page is a thing of beauty, and still stands, virtually untouched. That is the kind of thing I would like to contribute a lot more of to Wikipedia, if I but had the time. I could have very easily made my comment under that account, but I decided against it because I just wrote an article in my personal blog about the deletion situation. Submitting my comment under my long established pseudonymous account would have felt dishonest, so I set up a new account, under my real name. I guess I foolishly assumed having a web footprint spanning a number of different areas of interest would prevent sock puppet allegations.

I'm a Canadian, but I speak to several people in the UK, so the most natural thing in the world to do was consult Wikipedia to find out about Mark Duggan. The blaring notice about being flagged for deletion hit me between the eyes. As a writer, of both fiction and non-fiction, I am very well aware of the importance of Wikipedia. Any advocacy I may have exhibited in this case is not for Mark Duggan, nor even for "The Death of Mark Duggan" but for the amazing thing called Wikipedia, which has the real life potential to become a real world "Encyclopedia Galactica." If it is not destroyed from within by internal politics and bullying.

At this point I don't know if I will contribute further to Wikipedia under either account. Having this tag affixed to my comment certainly feels like bullying to me. Life is too short.

Laurel L. Russwurm (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I also supported keeping the article. My reason for placing the tag was not to prevent the article from being kept. Secondly, was there some reason for me to expect you had this background? I think it is unfair of you to have expected me to know that you created another account from a past one, or otherwise. I don't believe it is common practice for regular users to do "background checks" of other users. Third, I think it may have been better to have just made the comments under your original account. Like I said, I think it is unlikely that people would have searched for your blog. Besides, people are entitled to their opinions on world events and, in my opinion, should not judge them on that basis. Finally, there's a reason the single-purpose account tag exists. For some articles, especially ones that are contentious like Mark Duggan's, lots of anonymous users or first-time users will come to comment on the page. In these cases, it is not unusual for these accounts to be sock puppets of others who have participated in the discussion. Regardless of what side they are on, it is better for administrators to know what comments come from single-purpose accounts to look for signs of sockpuppetry in a deletion discussion. We want the deletion discussion to reflect consensus, and not be tainted by the same person making multiple comments under the same account. I am sorry that you feel bullied, but this was intended to be a preventative measure rather than bullying directed at you. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor correction

--JayMan63 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Sorry that you felt what I was writing was a tirade. That was not my intent and I accept that my choice of pages might not have been the best for that discussion. I just didn't want to be sucked into the squabble - and squabble is what it appears like to me. If it looks like a duck... I was merely saddened and disappointed that things had reached that level of acrimony. I was trying to speak to both sides. Thank you for your explanation of the quality of your editors/contributors/researchers. I now know to take anything and everything I read in Wikipedia with a huge block of salt. I will make sure others understand your limitations, too. I truly am not angry or making threats. I am merely stating a sadder but wiser understanding of the facts as you have presented them to me.JayMan63 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I am honored to award you this Barnstar for your work in catching my typos and your valued assistance in bringing Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers to life for the community. It is hoped that newcomers will benefit from WP:NewbieGuide for years to come. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A two-fer

The Special Barnstar
During disussions on the talk page for Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers you shared some wonderful insights that I was able to incorporate into the essay. I am grateful for your assistance and hope that WP:NewbieGuide will be of benefit to newcomers for years to come. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

Whew!

Your message arrived just as I was planning to log off for the evening but I thought I would do a quick speed read of the controversy first. That was impossible to complete in a few minutes, so let me ask, what is the core issue here? I promise to delve into it tomorrow. It has been at least thirty years since I fancied myself any kind of a serious critical analyst of science fiction, so I can't promise that I will have much enlightening to say. But, I will try to contribute some tiny thing toward resolution of the dispute. I will try, but would appreciate some pointers . . . Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Whew!-- tell me about it. I'm incredibly tired of all this and would like it to end soon.
The basic issue deals with several editors' opposition to the term "reprint" or "originally published" when describing a few stories within a shared-world fiction series Heroes in Hell (specifically, Gilgamesh in the Outback and Newton Sleep. These stories were, according to Hullaballoo Wolfowtiz and his sources, first published in science fiction magazines prior to their publication in the book series with what are called "first serial rights" (which is defined on page 15 here. However, describing them with terms other than "first serial rights," such as the above terms, appears to be denigrating to the original author, as it suggests the original copyright was not the author of Heroes in Hell, Janet Morris. What's more, Morris herself (or a user who claims to be her) as well another author who has published within Heroes in Hell are in this debate.
There is also off-wiki canvassing, incivility, accusations of editors not having enough knowledge of contract and publication rules, and several other issues not relevant to the dispute resolution (although this may change depending on what involved users decide to bring up):
  • The notability of individual books and oppositions to a prior merger of all the books to the series page.
  • How Wikipedia is hard to understand for many involved editors and how they don't have time to understand everything
  • How editors are arguing that their unverifiable claims should be taken as fact
  • Really bad faith accusations of OrangeMike and Hullaballoo Wolfowtiz as having some kind of COI or being asked to recuse themselves.
There was also an AN/I opened up because of perceived legal threats, but it has died down.
Anyway, let me know if you have other questions. I'm pretty much an expert on this debate at this point. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

I, Jethrobot, thanks again for the super editorial fix and for explanations of how things work on this resolution board. I hope your edit sticks. I would like to be finished with this. Hopefully, when it is over, some of the nice folks who were working on the page to begin with will come back since I cannot do that. Guarddog2 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Animus (journal)

Hi Jethro, Thanks for taking a look at my new article Animus (journal). I've just added an additional reference. Does this meet your notability concern? I should perhaps add that I raised the question of whether there ought to be an article for Animus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals before undertaking to create one. Let me know what you think. Best regards, Tillander 07:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So is it ok for the notability tag to be removed? And if so, should I remove it or should you? Sorry, I'm still relatively new at this. Best, Tillander 07:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, no problem; I'm glad to you asked. Any editor is allowed to remove those tags, as long as the problem has been sufficiently addressed. I'll let you do the honors. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB

I Jethrobot, I have approved your request for AWB. Please review the Rules of Use, then you can get started! Happy editing! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

Jethrobot, this Wolfowitz is saying I shouldn't have been on this discussion site at all, and of having been on WP before (?) and various other crimes. Should I bail out? Go away? Delete guraddog? (How do I do that?) None of these accusations are true. I wouldn't know how to create a multiple account. I'm having enough trouble with one account. Guarddog2 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for a mentor

Hey, thanks for requesting a second opinion on your review. Unfortunately I haven't got the time to review GANs as much as I did when I became a mentor, so I'll have to pass (and maybe remove my name from the list of mentors as well). If it helps, User:Epbr123 wrote a checklist I often use when reviewing, especially for prose and style (and MoS, for that matter). Hopefully you find a suitable alternative to my help. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Having been informed that a user self-identifying as Janet Morris was indef-blocked last year, and noting substantial similarities in the editing behavior of that editor and Guarddog2, I've concluded that the current dispute resolution discussions are no longer adequate to address the underlying problems. You may or may not wish to participate; I thank you for your attempts so far to help resolve the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

FLC List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books)

Hi! A while ago you reviewed List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books) for featured list. I think, I replied to all of your comments/questions/suggestions. If you still have any comments on the list, please leave them on the nomination page. If not, I'd be happy if you could leave a vote ("support" or "oppose") on the nomination page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Long Comments

Several of the people were not there from the start, and almost none of them knew me. Since Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was claiming I was a sock puppet I needed to provide solid verifiable proof that I wasn't one. So I did.

As to calling people idiots, I think if you read what I wrote carefully you'll see that I didn't call anyone there an idiot. I did warn them them that certain actions would cause me to call them idiots. This is not the same thing.

I've worked with chemistry for a long time. When working with dangerous substances you do not mess around. Politeness is not an option. You are either right, or you are injured or dead. There is no other choice. Ever hear of the Darwin Awards? I try to help people avoid winning one.

Wikipedia in many ways is a bad example. The belief in consensus building is dangerous. On one of the chemistry related articles the consensus was reached that 2H2 + O2 = 2H2. Any chemist, like myself, would react to this with horror. As I stated during the earlier discussion, consensus is not suitable for all situations. Consensus of this sort, in an encyclopedia that people are using for reference, could kill someone. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth". That means we are expected to back our contributions up with reliable sources. So if the chemistry article formula you mention above is incorrect, you should change it to reflect a cited source so that no one will die. A consensus of editors would naturally have to agree on the correct formula if it were cited properly. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and the issue that has come up repeatedly in the discussions is of verifiability of claims. Assertions of "truth," no matter what someone's credentials or identity are, don't hold up on Wikipedia unless they are backed up by sources. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why waiting for Consensus is not good policy

Why is collapsing your comments an extremely good policy? Because your comments are disruptive.

Sorry - this is an answer to the above. I decided to split it out because things were getting a right royal mess, and because it appeared that no one was understanding the salient issues. Here they are, with better formatting

If the issue is the dates of manufacture of a particular model of left handed guitar (I'm left handed, and play left handed guitar, so it would be of interest to me) and error in date is not likely to lead to death or injury. When a chemical formula is involved accuracy could lead to deaths. As a chemist I know exactly how easy it is to find bomb making materials. The only reason we don't see more bombs, is that most people don't know a damned thing about chemistry. There is good and bad to this. It's good, as there are less people capable of building bombs. It's bad, in that there are less people capable of building some really useful technology which could be in far more common use, if only we had the people with the training to make it.

This is why I would rather not get specific about the problems I see. It is possible for someone desperate enough to build a primitive bomb from materials that are commonly found on most households. I'd rather not advertise how to do that, because there are crazies who would do it if they knew how.

When I see something on Wikipedia that could be dangerous, or that could lead to something dangerous, my policy is to remove/rewrite it in such a way as to hide the fact that I've hidden something dangerous. We really do not want little Billy to make a back yard bomb and blow up his high school on a youthful lark. You might consider this action to be outside of Wikipedia's policies. I regard it as plain common sense.

There's also legal issues. Its illegal here for a bartender to serve someone who is inebriated. and who the bartender knows will be driving. If the bartender does so, the bartender is liable for any accidents that the driver causes.

That law has never been tested on Wikipedia yet, and I am Not a Lawyer. However I would hate to be a test case which would prove that the law could be applied to Wikipedia. If some loony who used Wikipedia to build a bomb, you can bet some prosecutor would try to hold the contributing editors be partially responsible. And then run for Federal Office.

I doubt that this would hold up in court, since there is no direct connection between you and the bomb builder, so you would be unable to determine his/her/its mental stability. And there's the issue of not being a Psychiatrist, and Psychiatrists not being all that reliable either. But defending such a lawsuit could be costly, and there would be no assurance that you could get the losing side to cover your legal costs.

This leaves out the moral issues entirely. As a consecrated priest (yes, I'm one of them too) the moral issues are the most important in my opinion. Do you want someone to use someone you placed in an article to try to emulate the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing? I don't. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You really would hate to be a test case which would prove that the law could be applied to Wikipedia. See No legal threats. I would drop the legal thing straight away: you're not the first to work that angle, and you won't be the last. Most editors that pursue this avenue wind up blocked indefinitely. Doc talk 04:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
These really have nothing to do with your suspected status as a sock of someone else (I don't believe you are), and they bear no relevance to the issues surrounding Heroes in Hell. Your insistence on expounding them as some "defense," or that you are doing this for your purported noble cause, is disruptive. Finally, expressing "concern" that Wikipedia could be sued over stuff is something that Jimbo Wales and the WP:Wikimedia Foundation deals with. It is not something editors should be concerned about or discussing as you have been. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ron Hextall GAN

Hi, just a note to let you know that I am back from honeymoon, and slowly getting back up to speed on Wikipedia. I have replied to your comments at the good article review, and will be working on the article a bit over the next few days. Thanks for your patience! Harrias talk 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the review: as feedback for you, the review was done well, you were courteous and considerate (which can be rare traits in a reviewer) and covered all the points. Personally, I wasn't too keen on the table you used for the review, but as an aid for you in checking that you have well, checked everything, I can see it's worth. Thanks again! Harrias talk 16:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. I also found the table a little cumbersome to work with from an editing standpoint, so I will probably do something else next time around. :) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GA

Hi Jethrobot,

Thanks for your note on Ron Hextall. I am happy to look over the review and provide MOS feedback. I will be out of town until Sunday and may not be able to provide much until I return.

Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have started to examine the citations to see if they comply with MoS. I've only taken a first glance over the citations, but so far it looks good. I will examine citations with closer scrutiny this evening. Majoreditor (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I did get a second opinion already from Wizardman, and have already passed the article to GA, but you are certainly welcome to make improvements or generally comment on my review (it's the very first one I've done). I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Majoreditor (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Original individual pages of books in Heroes in Hell series.

Is there any way for me to access the original pages that were set up for each book in the Heroes in Hell series from before they were merged? I would simply like a copy of them for our archive purposes. I have no intention of trying to recreate the pages since the series page deals with the individual volumes quite well. Hulcys930 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • You got it. They are a little tough to get to, but if you look at the merger list on the Heroes in Hell discussion page, there are links to the original talk pages for the merged books. Below are the page histories for each merged book; you can see the page in all of its previous states before they were merged by clicking on the date/time or "diff" for any given revision.
Let me know if you need anything else. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have followed the links above and all I can get to is the Revision History. I have tried comparing edits and no matter what I try to compare, what shows up is the first edit I select and the edit that merged the page with HiH. There was information on these pages like pictures of the book covers, publication data and quite a bit of other information that does not show up, even if I start with the very first edit (bottom of the page) and compare it to the very next one - I still get the revision that merged the page with HiH. I tried going from the HiH page and still can only get the revision history that ultimately only tells me the page was merged with HiH. Is there some kind of archive containing the actual pages with graphics and data that I could go to? Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The images appear to have been removed from the Wikipedia Commons and are no longer accessible as far as I know. As for publication data, if you ever saw it on the page, it would still be in these histories. There's no possible way for it to be permanently removed. Sorry I can't be of more help. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Wrt to the carriage return inside candidates' names in the Repub debate participation table, could you chime in on the talkpage? If others discuss it then we can better come to a consensus with your input there. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your suggestions. I wasn't kvetching about your edit, btw, but another editor that kept undoing month-abbreviations w/o comment, day after day... Not a big deal, I know. But I had done the talk page comment and a edit summary, and to have it ignored and simply summarily um .... (oops! see what I mean abt my silly kvetching in that....lol) sighs)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Anytime! Sorry to hear about the table drama. :P I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the right amount of input on an AfD without relisting?

I've been enjoying automated tools on AfDs and while I haven't been closing too much yet (two dozen or less), I've been relisting (perhaps too much). I've been going by the rule of thumb: if I start counting participants on my little finger, and including myself, I get to my thumb, that's enough participation (depending on the clash). I've been looking at the AfD documentation again; I can see examples of closures with only two participants, the closer and the nominator. That's not something I want to do as a non-admin. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Another not funny question: If there a common term for the massive number of low-edit-count user accounts that buzz around deletion procedures? It seems like a socking game. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't actually done any relisting so far, so I can't speak to that, but I probably should consider doing that more often (I actually didn't know that non-admins could relist, so thanks for letting me know). Some debates I don't rely on a specific number of people participating (though I don't think I have closed any with just the nominator and myself as the closer/participant, except when the nominator has left a comment indicating that they want to withdraw their nomination-- which I think is legitimate grounds for non-admin closure as it is pure housekeeping). But, looking at my own closures, I look for participation around 4 editors besides the nominator. I tend to close AfDs with the following properties:
  • The nominator withdraws their nomination realizing some error, and there is no other participation. I don't wait the full 7 days for these.
  • The nominator states there are no sources, or that the sources are insufficient for WP:N, but an editor finds sources. Multiple, subsequent editors agree those sources show notability, and support keeping the article, and there are no further delete arguments. I wait 7 days for these
  • More generally, after 7 days, when there are multiple sound arguments for keeping the article. There can be participants who support deletion, but if their concerns are clearly addressed by other editors through sources or clarification, I am OK with closing them.
  • Nominations that do not advance an argument for deletion. (e.g. I think this article should be titled x; I don't like this article)
To answer your second question, I generally refer to them as single-purpose accounts or SPAs. It probably is a socking game. But I find it hard to find strong evidence to support an SPI unless they engage in some really obvious sock behavior like repeating the same arguments across AfDs or making superficially different arguments within the same AfD. Also, I tend to avoid closing AfDs that involve SPAs. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a really interesting question. As a non-administrator but an active participant in the AfD process, I haven't (so far) taken non-adminstrator administrative action. Maybe I will in the future. However, I have no problem at all with non-administrators relisting for the purpose of encouraging more participation in the debate. Sometimes I don't notice a debate the first time around, but chime in when its relisted. As for closing AfD debates, I think that the important issue is the quality of the arguments. I like to think that one solid, well-reasoned, policy based argument is superior to many random, "I like it" or similarly weak arguments by SPAs, or even some experienced editors. On the other hand, I have seen some new editors, who are by definition SPAs, make very compelling arguments in AfD debates. So, my advice to non-adminstrative closers would be to limit their actions to cases where the argument is truly compelling and policy-based on one side, and manifestly weak on the other side. Leave the contentious, close-call decisions to the administrators. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Meetup

(reply copied from my user talk) It is likely to be a edit-a-thon. Thus, there will be lots of time devoted to starting/improving Chicago-relevant articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started a discussion on ideas for the edit-a-thon. Is there a date in mind yet? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Slugslinger deletion review

Sorry about that, I think I had an edit conflict because I took so long to write my comment, and it reverted other people's edits when it entered mine. Mathewignash (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamin Winans

The filmmaker meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Please revisit the article to see that poor citations are being replaced with decent ones.[3][4] I have not gone through some others yet, but even IMDB lists that the man and his films as having been the subject of multiple articles: 15 in 2009,[5] 6 in 2010,[6] and 6 in 2011.[7] More to do, certainly, but based upon what has been done so far, might I request a withdrawal and early close? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I'm using FireFox 6.0. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Asking because I only found out today that IE7 is buggy when using Google News. All I can report is that I found what I initially did by using the (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) that came with the AFD... that and peeking to see where IMDB might lead me.
But in understanding what happened to you, I just did a regular g-news search which indeed returns nada.[8] But scrolling down on the left side of the page and clicking "archives", reveals the treasure.[9] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

DelSort

I am very interested în helping with deletion sorting - show me this "awesome tool" of which you speak! I would really like to help get interest for deletion discussions (plus I want to have my name on that list of awesome people!). But, I hope it isn't too complex - I have zero experience with computer programming. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Hey Interchangeable, thanks for swinging by. It's not too difficult. The code just requires to copy-paste this to a section of your userspace that deals with the interface you use to navigate/edit Wikipedia, namely, User:Interchangeable/monobook.js, if you are using the default Monobook skin under "My Preferences->Appearance." If you are using something else, you'll have to use that page instead (e.g. User:Interchangeable/vector.js, if you are using the vector skin).
Anydangway, you can find the code for delsort here. You'll want to copy-paste everything from where it says "//--- For delsort ---\\" to "//--- End delsort ---//" into your own file. After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes (there are instructions on how to do this on your page).
After that, go to any individual AfD page and you should see a tab in the top right called "delsort." It'll bring up a bunch of topics for sorting. Click on it, wait a few seconds, and automagically, you'll have done a delsort in no time. Let me know if you have success or if you encounter any issues. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I dîd everything you said, and for the most part it worked well. (I am a Grammar Nazi, however, so I strongly suggest you capitalize the d in delsort.) However, when I tried to delsort this AfD, there was an error saying it couldn't identify the article name. I tried again, and this is the error text that it gave me:
Nominated article name: Ryan_Davies_(filmmaker): Status
Check the article "Ryan_Davies_(filmmaker)" exists ...: Status
done: Progress
OK : Status
Grabbing edit form for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers: Status
Error: TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method 'toSource': Error
This also happens with other articles. Check that second red link you posted; maybe I made an error when I copied the code. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what happened with Ryan Davies (filmmaker). I just sorted it into a category, and it worked OK for me. As for the capitalization thing, I didn't write this code, so you'll have to take it up with the creator. I'll check over your code now and see what may have gone wrong. By the way, what skin are you using? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm usîng the Vector skin; be sure to check that one. By the way, please do not leave me that message on my talk page again. Your edit notice at the top says you will answer on your talk page, and I am watching this page anyway. Interchangeable|talk to me 03:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC) P.S.: GOSHDARNIT you beat me to sorting that one!! :)
Little busy today with my own research work, so I'll need to check in on this another time. Also, there have been too many times people don't read the top of my page, and I also realize that people do not like watching other people's talkpages. Hence, I often use talkback because people don't respond to me here. Besides, it's not hard to delete from your talkpage. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Gilgamesh Non-Consensus

It appears you instituted an SPI against me sometime yesterday and it closed in less than 24 hours, without any notice to me whatsoever. I do not have access to the two IP addresses listed and if you checked mine, I'm sure it bears no resemblance to those.

But, frankly, it doesn't really matter; the following is my statement on Wolfowitz' Talk Page, and I copy you because it is obvious that you actually try to be un-biased, but editors like Wolfowitz are the reason new editors are not staying with WP and why older editors are leaving. They are also the reason college professors are refusing to accept research material from WP on college papers, which is truly a shame. I'm really tired of fighting a brick wall.

"I thought this issue was settled. I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view, the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challenged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview he cited; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy and credibility of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into.

I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

  • There is no need to notify a user if they are suspected of engaging in sockpuppetry. Sorry if you were slighted by it, but I truly believe you were using IP addresses to make edits to Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback while also using Hulcys930 to engage in debate on the issue. This kind of editing behavior is not tolerated. I'm not sure how you can otherwise explain the flagrant similarity between these edits:
As well as the fact that this statement:
...ties you to these edits on the 23rd from another IP on Heroes in Hell, which Hullaballoo reverted as you said: [12], [13], [14].
While I have done my best to remain neutral, I simply cannot take you on your word that these are not your IPs, because the possibility that these edits were made by someone other than you is unbelievable to me. Another possibility is that there are separate persons you are coordinating with to edit in this fashion, but I doubt that very much. Because this is unacceptable behavior either way, I am not really in a position to assume good faith in your motivations here on Wikipedia. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Somehow, I'm pretty sure you could identify the locations of those other IP's that are nowhere near where I live if you really wanted to. I'm not enough of a computer nerd that I know how to log in through IPs on the other side of the country. It's truly a shame that WP feels it is justified in making decisions like this with absolutely no "verifiable" evidence whatsoever. Had there actually been any "investigation" involving internet addresses, etc., you would know those are not my IP addresses. I know who Janet Morris is and her username, I also know who the IP addresses belong to; sorry, but none of us are the same person. Since I am a 57-year old disabled female, the statement of being in the United States Army would be just a little absurd, besides the fact that I live in a completely different city and state than the real user. By the way - all those other people you think are sock-puppets of Janet Morris are also real people - I actually know them and have even met some. I had been ignoring most of the bad press on Wikipedia - until now. Mr. Wales is probably a good guy with good intentions; the same cannot be said for some long-time editors, who have lost perspective on WP. Hulcys930 (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you are confusing me with another user. I have no opinion on the issues that others have mentioned about Janet (in fact, I defended Guarddog2 against accusations that she was a sockpuppet of another account).
Also, I have no way of knowing your IP address. Only users called checkusers can get that info, and will only retrieve it in certain circumstances, due to privacy issues. All I have is the editing behavior I've laid out above and your word. I'm choosing not to believe you based on the similarities in editing behavior, and the fact that you indirectly admitted you were editing Heroes in Hell under an IP on the 23rd, which you should have done with your regular username. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If I "indirectly" admitted editing under an IP on the 23rd (the IP user admitted that) it was REALLY, REALLY indirectly! I have seen other users casually discuss IP addresses and the fact that they could determine the geographical location of them with no trouble, so why would I not think you had that capability also?
Since you began your "investigation" with an assumption of guilt and looked for evidence to back that up, instead of investigating honestly and letting the evidence lead you to the answer, I'm not surprised you decided I was using IP addresses I have absolutely no possible way to access.
I can tell from your writing style that you are very intelligent, if a bit young; one day, when you understand bureaucracies and how they work a little better, you will see what has happened to Wikipedia, complete with members with obsessive personal agendas, use of specialized information and procedures to confuse "outsiders" and marginalize them - behavior intended to keep the bureaucracy extant, regardless of whether it is performing its intended function or not - you may be able to see WP the way it appears to the rest of us. The unfortunate part of all this sturm and drang is that smart, knowledgeable people are not participating in the editing because as soon as they edit a page with a "watcher/protector" they are subjected to the type of behavior exemplified by Wolfowitz, and decide it's not worth their time to have a battle of wits with an unarmed combatant. The "if I keep saying this loudly enough and enough times, I will eventually prevail" mentality exhibited by many of your "more experience" editors works - mainly because, as soon as most people recognize that behavior, they know there is no point in continuing to argue, just as I did.
Enjoy your time at university and I hope your major is something that will afford you the ability to be successful throughout life because, frankly, despite our differing beliefs, you strike me as someone with true concern and ethics and the world needs more people like you in positions of responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your civility. I'm going to drop the sockpuppet issue. I apologize if you feel wronged, but I was simply acting on the evidence I saw. There was no reasons for me to presume you were engaging in sockpuppetry before that, so I don't feel like I have engaged in a confirmation bias. If you disagree, that's fine, and we'll have to leave it at that. I have a response to one of your comments:
one day, when you understand bureaucracies and how they work a little better, you will see what has happened to Wikipedia, complete with members with obsessive personal agendas, use of specialized information and procedures to confuse "outsiders" and marginalize them - behavior intended to keep the bureaucracy extant, regardless of whether it is performing its intended function or not - you may be able to see WP the way it appears to the rest of us.
  • First, as someone who has worked in activism and someone involved in academia even before I began graduate school, I have a decent understanding of administration, bureaucratic walls, and tactics used to alienate others. While I agree that WP policies are dizzying, and that some editors have not been especially adept at assuming good faith, this has not colored my perception of the project as a whole. For instance, I helped develop a primer for newcomers this month that serves as reference guide for new editors.
  • Second, it seem your generalization of Wikipedia has been heavily biased by this one set of events. All I can tell you is that WP is generally not like this, and that my interactions with other editors, other articles, and other discussions concerning deletion/merging/etc. have been considerably more pleasant. I refuse to accept the notion that WP is a corrupt project, or that lots of editors are like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, or even that HW typically acts this way, because if you spent more time working on other articles and working more productively with editors, you would not go through messes like this one.
  • Finally, this issue as I see it -- concerning language use when describing publication information for a single story in a single book of the HIH series -- in the scope of things, is really not that important, and it's not likely that readers will care how this is phrased or that it is even mentioned at all. You have to learn to pick your battles, and this one just makes me laugh when I think about all the animosity and empty accusations made throughout the discussion over something so inconsequential. In my opinion, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Guarddog2, UrbanTerrorist, and yourself have not learned to let go of something so petty. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that there are many more examples of decent, non-combative behavior on WP than those like this situation. You will notice that after I responded to you last, I have not even gone to look at the pages in question, nor responded to HW's accusations. When I attempted civility, logic and fact, I was answered by vitriol, accusations and, frankly, whining about being picked on. I continued to try to explain the issues being misunderstood by HW as cogently and factually as possible, without personal attacks. It finally became obvious that no matter what anyone said, he had an iron-clad belief in his position and facts were not going to change it one iota. The sad thing is that he is misrepresenting the situation with Mr. Silverberg and the HiH series (for some unknown reason) and only responds to disagreement with ever more hysterical vitriol. I worked for lawyers for many decades and learned that facts are actually relevant. There can be disagreement regarding the terms of a contract, or the coverage in an insurance policy, usually extremely complex documents that leave lots of room for disparate beliefs (naturally, colored by the needs of the client), but, in the end, usually the assertions closest to the truth win out.
Frankly, I was assuming that WP was interested in accuracy and facts; after being subjected to insulting attacks and diatribes replete with reference to rules and policies that in many cases had nothing to do with the subject matter or anyone's behavior, I realized I was fighting a losing battle. I have absolutely no idea why HW is so adamant about that one story in a series of 12 volumes from a quarter of a century ago; it does, however, irk me that he is intransigent in his "belief" and refuses to even consider the possibility that he might have been confused as to the true situation. I'll admit that I allowed his behavior to color my responses and was disrespectful out of frustration.
Be that as it may, I have other, more important things to occupy my time (like writing stories, editing, proofing, learning new ways to use the internet, etc.) and simply decided to disengage. I suppose I am guilty of assuming one situation was representative of the attitude in general of WP, and for that I apologize. Maybe someday when I have a little more free time (I guess when I'm in my 80s!) I will check back in with WP and see if I can improve any articles in my areas of interest/expertise. I have often used WP as at least a starting point for research, especially regarding ancient history and famous figures from antiquity. Now I will just be a little more careful to obtain corroborating evidence from another source, just in case another HW has edited a page to reflect his own beliefs rather than accuracy. Best Wishes Hulcys930 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_JethroBT/Archive_2&oldid=1138914401"