Jump to content

User talk:Indubitably/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

BLP List

Hey Lara, welcome back to *cough* your talk page. Quick question. I removed an item at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist, and was going to remove more relinks - but got to thinking that they may there to "watch" that nobody "recreates" them. Should I revert myself? ... or should I go ahead and remove the relinks? Thanks. — Ched :  ?  16:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. I am not sure, but I would leave them. They do no harm being there. لennavecia 16:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD

I'm sure it was a surprise to both of us to find ourselves in this thing. I'm here to bury the hatchet and say I hope we can work productively and professionally together, respecting our differences. Cla68 has kicked off a "problem statements" section which I've added to. I've included your professed interest in BLPs. Perhaps you might expand it? Having hardly ever edited a BLP, save the odd architect, who are typically personally quite uninteresting and seem to avoid 'scandal' I haven't really formed a view on the issue, other than to say that as the most likely route to us being sued, it makes sense to look at ways of making BLPs as factually robust as possible. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal feelings about past events won't affect my participation in the ACPD. That's not something anyone needs to worry about. We've coexisted on this project without crossing paths once since my RFA. This will most likely be the only exception in the foreseeable future, so I think everything will be fine. Thanks for the heads up about the problems statement. I'll go expand upon it. لennavecia 14:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Little Colton tail

Did you notice that the comment KillerChihuahua removed from her talk page by you happened to have the same gist as the comment she removed from her talk page by me? I take it that she doesn't enjoy it that people point out a major policy breach in her constant attacking and aggressive behavior, promoting rumor and innuendo, and smearing Julian all over RfB is worse than any of the "badgering" that she claims Julian is participating in. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well see my removal of her comment here. Hypocrisy tops my list of undesirable traits to deal with. I am fed up with the lack of self-awareness and bitter attitude that does nothing but drama-monger and cause unnecessary disruption. The posting of the email on the RFB and BN was so far beyond inappropriate and, of course, no action will be taken. That was deliberate disruption in my view. If not, there is a serious lack of good judgment for someone with the admin bit. لennavecia 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should create an email account, email you some nasty attacks, and then you can post it somewhere and claim it as a legitimate concern too. I could make up all sorts of wonderful, paranoid stuff. Just think of the possibilities. ANI would be a wonderful place to post that. And since smears are now allowed, it will be acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, ya know, I'm inclined to believe that the email was legit, from Avi's post. Of course, there's no way to know for sure, but I think Avi is clueful enough to notice if it is from a throw-away account. However, this is not how we operate here. Just as we do not allow the use of alternate accounts to avoid scrutiny, we do not allow for proxy editing for the same, and that is precisely what she did. It showed a complete lapse in judgment. Top it off with the fact that she is one of the loudest and most obnoxious voices of opposition and it's just further disgusting. لennavecia 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Letting things go isn't on her list of traits either.[1] لennavecia 18:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Juliancolton

I don't understand why you edited someone else's talk page, so I reverted it. I did not see your name in either of the comments deleted. You really should let the user take care of his/her own talk page. Unless I'm missing something...? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I had his permission. Revert yourself. لennavecia 19:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It's already gone past me. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly why it was removed. لennavecia 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Just as an aside, perhaps in the future if you're unsure of why someone did something, you should ask before reverting. Removing that thread would have nipped some drama in the bud, which would have been a Good Thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A logical suggestion; accepted. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

[Comment removed by Jennavecia.]

That's between you and him. My interference should not be a measure of how two presumably mature adults resolve their differences online. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 4:12 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Pigeon photography

Your article Pigeons in aerial photography has become a bit quiet recently – perhaps I have driven away everybody with my excessive activity? I am quite happy with it in its current state, and I would like to draw more attention to it in the hope that a new reader has access to additional information. For that reason I have translated the article to German (my first bigger project at de), and I am also considering a French translation. The only glaring hole at the moment is the fact that the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps" is not even mentioned. I am not sure how to do this adequately. Eventually this must of course become a featured article. I am thinking about taking it to GA for the moment. What do you think? PS: Just come in, the first result of my new (German) article on Julius Neubronner. [2] Hans Adler 09:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't run off by your activity. Just been busy. I did peek in on it, however, a few days ago. Very nice work! I think Bavarian Pigeon Corps can be worked in as a section, explaining that no sources show that the Corps actually existed. We can't say it was a hoax, as no source says so, but we can note that it is not verified. Lara 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Todd and Tyler Radio Empire

Care to take a look? It's somewhat better than it was before, but I still think there are problems. I'm having difficulty explaining to an editor why some of the material does not belong. Enigmamsg 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Asking for Undeletion

Can you bring back Levon Hayrapetyan? I have source for this article. By User:Hovhannesk —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Has he played professionally? Lara 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ج

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rebafan49

This user is an obvious sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Dingbat2007. Dingbat has used the "Rebafan" name in the past. The account has already made 3 edits, two of which were vandalism. Would it be possible to nip this in the bud before he gets out of control? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a giant BLP problem right now. I'll look at it a bit later, but recommend dropping notes to a couple admins who may be able to address it sooner. Lara 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie, no problem. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Buddy601

You protected your page on Drew Gooden. I need to adjust because he was signed by the Dallas Mavericks, and it currently states he is a free agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy601 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject for generation of content

Replied on my talk page.Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


My apologies

I didn't realize adding the BLP template to them all would create such a headache. I tried something similar, using AWB, on a smaller scale over the past few days, and it seemed to be working well, so I thought it would be OK to try and fill in some lists of redlinks. I'm going to hold off for now (and probably for good - I was afraid there might be a complaint, but I decided to give it a shot regardless and see what would happen.) --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is with the automatic categorization that happens when the BLPunsourced template is added. It took several months to categorize the tens of thousands of BLPs that were not in Category:Living people. Some of the editors who helped with that burned out and no longer work BLP issues. So correcting this will fall on the shoulders of fewer editors. Part of the problem as well, and as Blofeld pointed out: it's patient work. It's extremely boring work. Few volunteers are willing to do it. I can't even bring myself to spend much of my time on it. Free labor for the utterly uninteresting? Not easy to take on. Lara 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'm sorry...please understand that they were created in good faith. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I think the plan was just a little ill-considered. Lara 21:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I was operating under the understanding that I wouldn't be alone, and that there would be some help categorizing. I certainly wouldn't have just gone and created myself, had I thought otherwise. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that we got this clear up quickly. I can see where that you were coming from, but I agree that large projects such as this one needs the support of many people to make them work out well. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And I thought that's what I had backing me. Seems not to have worked out that way, alas. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this will be the start of people on here seriously taking into consideration what I proposed long ago before any of these stubs were created and got no reply or evidence that anybody really cared about transferring decent referenced content from other wikipedias so I was forced to do it maually and far from the best way possible. To organise a project and a bot which can extract basic information and reference it and start missing articles from other wikipedias. I don't think you realise what it would be to be able to create content rapidly in the most efficient way possible with adequate starter acontent to avoid any of thes eproblems we seme to have suddenly encountered.Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Loads of people have ideas. You need to find the people to do the work. People don't magically appear to work on stuff that you think is a good idea. I suggest that you go to the appropriate Wikiprojects and advertise you idea, gather support before you go ahead.
We have a real backlog of articles about people (living and dead) that are crummy. Below that standard that should exist for people. It would be goodness to bring one article at a time that are high quality well sourced articles from other wikis to fill a void. But starting a massive number of very short articles without sources really does not help. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Flo sums it up nicely. You weren't forced to create thousands of sub-stubs. The best option of the project would be to work on one at a time. It's not about numbers. Quality over quantity. Lara 23:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've compiled a list of all the articles in question that were generated using AWB: User:Juliancolton/List. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to mass-nominate that many articles for AFD. How do I go about tagging them? Lara 04:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I know how; but the standard way would be spammy beyond belief, and I don't think its necessarily the best way to do it. I could nom one, explain in the nom that there are almost 3,000 of these (are they all tagged with underconstruction?) and link to Julian's list. (thanks much, Julian, great work there, btw!) Or if the creator acknowledges he may have made an error in how he created these, we could speedy them all under CSD G7, which would be a wonderful gesture, saving much time and work, if Blofeld will concede and agree to such deletions here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is Jenna you took for granted I'm lazy and wouldn't be willing to go through the list and seperate the living from the deceased. You haven't even given me a chance to expand a single one of them so evne if I do now and it ends up being B class quality you'll happily delete it. If I go through the lists can we at least keep the non BLP problem articles? After all this is really what your nomination was about, the fact that your workload dramatically increased by the placing of those BLP tags on the articles even if wrongly so on half of them and that they needed more info.Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Every one of these articles needs to be looked at individually and fixed it kept. There is no real value in having pre-stubs that have no refs for the existing material. You are missing the point somewhat. All articles need to have refs. We give priority to BLP now because it is impossible for look at all articles. But there is not reason to create articles without high quality content. It cause more problems than it solves. They need to be deleted and brought back one at a time in a good form. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The above comment is not true. I did not say that I think anyone is being lazy. There are admins going through the list now to remove any that have been expanded. Then the sub-stubs will be deleted. Personally, I don't believe a distinction between the BLPs and BPDs should be made for reasons that Flo has pointed out. This is just my opinion, however, and the deletions are being based from the votes in the AFD. Lara 16:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've restored Kurt Bürger, which you deleted, and Wilhelm Buck which was deleted by Ched. Both were MPs half a century ago, so I figured we should keep and expand those.
I didn't think you'd mind, and only now saw the bruhaha at ANI about a similar case, so I thought I'd let you know. And no, I'm not just undoing your work, I've also checked and deleted somewhat over 300.
Cheers, Amalthea 23:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I demand you redelete them!!!
No, I'm kidding. Thanks for the note. Do attempt to source, though, please. :) Lara 23:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Did source, at least those two. Will source two others I've edited and you've tagged. Tomorrow. :) Cheers, Amalthea 23:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

More sub-stub bios not listed in the AFD

Hmm, I notice there's a bunch that were missing from Julian's list: [3], e.g. Dirk Elbers. See also this revision of User:Dr. Blofeld/Germany. Since at least the few I've checked have the same content as the ones discussed in the AfD, I'd say that the consensus there can be extended → new list at User:Amalthea/Sandbox. Not all of them are German politicians, a number are artists from the Netherlands or the Czech Republic, and some have also been extended by Dr. Blofeld to proper stubs.
Dr. Blofeld, any comment?
Amalthea 12:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have any respect you'll back off and allow me to fix the ones I created. I do not need further AFDs thrown at me today when I can bring the articles I created to minimum within a few days. Just back away and allow me to sort it out and take away the unnecessary pressure you have presented here. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned you've got some time with this. The stubs as created aren't libelous and the very limited information on them is verifiable, so a couple days won't hurt. If you're planning to get them all beyond the threshold given in the AfD, then that's fine by me. Someone has to go through all of them though since a number of them are BLPs, and really, they are completely useless in the form they've been created since all the information in them was already in the respective List of German $PARTY politicians. In fact, deleting them with no prejudice against recreation, as stated in the AfD, wouldn't even be a problem since you're free to recreate them properly.
Anyway, if that someone who goes through them all is you then it's all the better. Amalthea 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Half of them are deceased and are certainly not libelous. I personally find it easy to expand on what I create than restarting, thats why I start bunches together. If you would kindly allow me to work hard through the lists in my own time I would appreciate this, help is greatly needed, naturally. Virtually all bios have references that could simply be added from the German National Library site Bavarian Landtag etc. Even the BLPs that I will sort out are not exactly likely to have millions of vandals targetting every one of them, certianly not within the next few days anyway.Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate that these weren't found before. This really should have been mentioned at some point during the AN/I discussion. They are exactly the same type of articles we just gained consensus to delete, including many BLPs. *sigh* I don't understand what is so much easier about expanding a sentence and starting from scratch. I just don't understand the "that's why I start bunches together" concept. One at time seems like a better option. Regardless, "millions of vandals targeting every one of them" is not what we're talking about. That would be horrible, but it only takes one. One vandal on an unwatched BLP and we have a libel issue that could stand for any amount of time. Please keep that in mind in the future when you're creating BLPs. Lara 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Give that I'm working hard on these and after yeserdtays overblown events I think I get the idea now. What I don't need is a repeat of yesterdays events. There was a misconception that adding a transwiki tag was somehow justifiable and an acceptable initial reference otherwise we'd not have started articles in this way. In future I will make sure that any BLPs I start at least will be properly referenced even if stubs. OK? You don't understand "I start bunches together" because you are not a new content contributor Lara. You don't understand how other editors start articles in sets to rid of red links, obviously.Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have contributed new content. I just don't find any value in substubs. I would not want my article to come up on top of a search when it offers less information that other pages, or the sources I use. And I would surely never create, at this stage of the project, an unsourced article, biography or otherwise. To me, red links indicate the need for an article, not need for a sentence, and creating a sentence turns a redlink blue and thus doesn't draw the attention of someone who may be inclined to actually write about the subject. Lara 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats because you seme to be en editor who expects every article to be of a very high standard and expects any article you find to be at a minimum standard. That would also be my ideal but the amount of work needed towards starting articles on missing gaps in the encyclopedia means that initial quality is often compromised as they need more people to build them up. this is why I create stubs on here. I have wintessed thousands of my stubs expanded, many may still be stubs but it is the fact that many have expanded like so that I get the motivation to produce more given the scale of this project and amount of editors who edit here. The end result of creating a very basic stub on that hospital article is a decent article now, so it blossomed. Its the same with Fishing in the Maldives or any article I've created such is the general desire to produce a higher quality encyclopedia if people come acorss lacking stubs they want to add a little and they gradually get better. I don't expect one person like yourself to have to do all the work, the idea is that the workload is ahred by the various people who use and read wikipedia and encourage them to build it with us.Dr. Blofeld White cat 22:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course she expects a minimum standard. There has to be a threshold. If there is no minimum standard, then what is left? No standard. I also have a minimum standard - a reference. Just one. Maybe not even a good one, but an attempt at one. So much of this has focused on the poor BLPs - how about just article standards for the sake of standards? For me, this is less about libel, and more about using en as a stub-repository. Regardless of your speculation about stubs leading to 'decent' articles, methinks that it is no coincidence that 3000 articles about German politicians and stuff went uncreated. Nobody was interested enough to do it. Stubs aren't going to pique anyone's interest, these are just like 'neutrals' during a discussion, just placeholders, doing nothing, hoping to get noticed. Law type! snype? 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion...

I know this was bantered about a couple of years ago, but why not propose that each admin (there are 1500 or so them) pick up 50 or 100 of the orphans at Special:UnwatchedPages, there are plenty of BLPs (see #'s 203 and 261) that have nothing to do with the recent spate. And what happens when a user leaves, how do we mark those pages as unwatched? But anyway, we work with what we have and there's plenty of BLPs for you and Geography and ancient history articles for me, and no doubt beetles for someone else. Whaddyathink? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely to happen. Some admins have thousands of articles on their watchlists already. Not to mention, a good number of those admins are inactive or only semi-active, so there's no guarantee their watchlists would be checked on any regular basis. Lara 04:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I have 40,000 or so - mostly small geographic articles that only get bursts of activity when the stub sorters re-arrange the various geographies. I with there were more traffic on them...but few people want to edit various small towns and ancient generals. :-( Take care. Carlos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tis OK

I know exactly what you did was in good faith, I wasn't really aware of the BLP problems, neither was Albert otherwise. I think it was because the articles were more bridges from German wikipedia and the initial stubs semed verifiable in the links. We thought the articles were just there for the content to be transferred not a liabililty. Given that you have a workload of maintaining and added references to BLPs having 3000 stubs like that must have knocked you for six. I believe everybody at the AFD believes these articles will be added eventually but started more adequately. Rather we disagreed with the way in which the articles are started. Most editors like to build wikipedia brick by brick, I tend to build it house by house without foundations at a time on occasions if the task is a big one if you know what I mean. I am very disappointed with the tone of a lot of the people who commented, particularly Gavin, he was bang out of order. Albert is one of the nicest, quietest editors around and he was only helping me out. I sincerely hope he will return when ready.Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I have twice archived Gavin's thread and believe it was an absurd proposal. Additionally, I left a message on Albert's talk page, as I believe his departure is a hit to the project. Very disappointing to see he was badgered off, which was certainly not something I wanted to happen, and I hope my comments were not taken as being too harsh. Lara 16:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know whether it will help, but feel free to review Gavin's RFC/U which I co-authored; it addresses his long history of incivility and lack of ability WRT AGF. BOZ (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm certain you've also had your fair share of the unnecessaries and unwanted drama when you thought you wer edoing the right thing. We don't always get it right and maybe sometimes we don't see things as others see them but I can assure you our goals in the long term are exactly the same. I believe this site is to be enjoyable and not stressful and I also believe it has a great deal of potential if people spend less time yelling at others and doing work!! As for the main page, I am sorry nothing came of that because I have long thought the main page has looked like we are in the year 1996. If you think how well designed many websites are, even localised ones you;d think a project like wikipedia would have something a bit less jaded. Anyway, at least the deletions have raised my attention more to our BLP obligationsand I'll take more care at least to add references and a bit more detail to any living biographies I start in the future. Right now, I'm not exactly feeling like expanding wikipedia.Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In light of the recent events I think it might be a good time to make a new project proposal at councils and organise a project which concentrates on transferring content from other wikipedias but in a way which is much more efficient and can done with no community concerns. If I make a proposal in a day or two can you comment as I feel we both share the same view that it is important to transfer content from other wikipedias but done adequately as part of a project coordination.Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Lara 19:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking the time and sticking your neck out here, and then for being so gracious to the editor who made the mistake. I couldn't find a bot to post 2,797 accurate and unique barnstars here, so a heartfelt thank you will have to suffice. Priyanath talk 16:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I don't think my awards page would continue to load in such a case anyway! :p I appreciate the note. Thank you. :) Lara 16:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to make a start!
Here's the first installment:

★ ✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ ✭ ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳

✴ ✵ ✶ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽ ✾ ✿

❀ ❁ ❂ ❃ ❄ ❅ ❆ ❇ ❈ ❉ ❊ ❋

That's 36. I'll come back later with 2,761 of 'em. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, omai. Lara 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gah

I "fixed" your archiving of the ANI thread, then seconds later realized it doesn't matter since they're all subthreads, and will get archived at the same time. I suppose I should be indef blocked for this... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. You clearly pulled a stunt here. And this post here is clearly another stunt. >_> Lara 17:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to block Gavin for this stunt, creating a new top-level section in the middle of ANI. Hans Adler 17:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't encourage me! XD Lara 17:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Would you mind not deleting the West German politician stubs that I fleshed out? Half of them aren't even BLPs. -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1500 articles were people who died yonks ago like Wilhelm Kraft! Darn the guy who suggested adding those BLP tags.Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The decision of the AFD was to delete them all unless they'd been expanded. If you want to created actual biographies, by all means, go ahead. They're being deleted without prejudice. Lara 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have been working on them. At least the half-dozen I could catch before they all went bye-bye. And now I'm in a wheel-war over Werner Pohle. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial for all involved if you went and read over WP:WHEELWAR. Lara 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, adding a sentence and no references isn't "expanding" the article. If you want to work on the articles this way, I believe it would be best do so in your user space then move them to article space when they're worthy of it. Lara 18:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Um .. ahhh .... yea

Aw geesh ... I'm off a couple days and I miss all the fun. Ah well, I just read through the ANI, and AfD. (as well as that ridiculous block suggestion). Anyway - get me up to speed, and I'll help if I can. Are we working off the User:Juliancolton/List list?, and deleting manually? Is MZM writing a bot to do this? (bot that deletes? .. mmmm... thinking on that one) Is someone working through one of the "del batch" buttons? Should we be moving the deleted ones from the list to the "list/del"? Is it all taken care of now? ... if not - What can I do to help? — Ched :  ?  18:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You ask lots of questions. We're going though the list manually. If it's been expanded, leave it. Otherwise, delete it per CSD-G6. Lara 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There's about 1,000 left. Lara 19:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
wow ... what a day huh? Sorry for the questions, that's just my way. Down to well under 500 now I think. — Ched :  ?  23:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Name now?

So, should we refer to you as Lara, per your sig, or Jenna or Jennavecia, per your acc't name? ThuranX (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. My username used to be LaraLove, which is what I use on IRC, and my real name is Lara. Most people call me Lara, so I changed the sig. Lara 20:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

More stubs

It seems there are about 300 more that were generated with AWB, as well as 1,000(?) manually created ones. Would you like me to list the rest? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to let the remaining articles sit for awhile, to give Dr. Blofeld a chance to sort through them. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You have my promise that I'll do as many as I can over the next week or so. I've got my work cut out now though!!!Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There are these 500+ ones as well. Orderinchaos 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not ask him to help expand them? As I said I'm working through the List of German Christian Democratic Union politicians which those articles were part of. Ther eis also enough German editor working through them too. The only other I know will also be tackled a soon as can be attended, it is a smallish list. The vast majoirty of the BLPs are in the list we are looking at, and as I said I am going through and sorting out the BLPs first. Julian has also accepted this and that we know what we have to do... Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to know how many more there are. We're quickly approaching four thousand total, so an idea of the actual grand total would be nice. Lara 18:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

4,000? Newly created BLPs? I doubt it. I'm not superman. Considering I started actively working on German politicians a week or two ago I've hardly had time to create 10,000 articles if that is your concern. As I told you the bulk of the BLPs lie in List of German Christian Democratic Union politicians. The other smallish German list are deceased politicians from the 1920s so that is exempt and I've already ploughed my way through one list. I've created a handful of random others and when I say a handful I mean a handful of people such as roughly 10 award winning Dutch writers in Ferdinand Bordewijk Prijs, and one or two Czech musicians which I referenced like Jiri Vodicka.Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not say BLPs, I said stubs. We had the nearly 3k listed at AFD. The approximately 300 in your own contributions, and then now another 500 linked above. That's approaching 4k. Regardless, it's unfortunate that you apparently think BDPs are exempt from needing references, if I read what you wrote correctly. Lara 18:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I SAID I WAS SORRY FOR CREATING NEW ARTICLES TO BE TRANSWIKIED. I don't know what you want me to do or say but your persistent nagging is really starting to piss me off. I told you the reason why I thought the interwiki tagging and sourcing was enough to verify these articles, I do not need a continuous ticking off from an editor who is quite frankly is doing nothing to constructively help this problem other than take the easy option of nuking a bunch of stubs. I have not created further articles in the same way, it created a bit of a problem yes but I am working to correct the ones I started. I really don't know what more I can say but unlike Albert I don't find your tone the most easy going. " you apparently think BDPs are exempt from needing references". Haven't we apologised enough??? Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Little touchy today? You just said that "The other smallish German list are deceased politicians from the 1920s so that is exempt". Exempt from what? As for helping your problem, I've got enough to do with the little time I've got available. Regardless, I'm asking a simple question, Blofeld. Do you know how many more there are or not? I didn't say I was nomming them for AFD, and have no current plans to. Exactly like I said above, I simply want to know how many there are total. So don't get your boxers in a bunch over what you think my intentions are. Lara 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) Hey, maybe you should have a cup of tea? Lara was implementing community consensus. (And in case you wonder, I'm "involved", so to speak, having deleted about 400 of them myself.)  Frank  |  talk  18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually in a very good mood today, I just don't know how many times i can apologise for the same thing. You were talking about immediate problems from BLP which I am working on tackling first. The deceased ones can be expanded and referenced later and the list is only a small one anyway.

Right you want a rough estimate?Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking you for apologies, and I'm not berating for the articles, I'm just asking you for a number, because you seemed to have been involved in the organization of these article creations, thus seemed like the person to ask. A ballpark on a grand total is all I'm looking for. Lara 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hokay, don't usually count my articles but here goes:

The two main lists are

I've already worked one German list, the Bavarian Christian Social Union politicians, the only other major list was the social democrat one, I believe virtually all of those were deleted as Albert worked on that list. That's honestly it as far as I am aware. I was working on Czech municipalities only two weeks ago and this recent drive to trasnfer bios is a very recent one. Even I am not capable of creating "that" many articles within such a small time frame.

I count roughly 2800 in the CDU list, 285 Dutch = 3085.

If you want to include the list of 1920s politicians which are not BLP problems add roughly 200 to that list.

So I make it 3285 and that is including a lot of articles which aren't affected by BLP. If I push hard I could probably get the Dutch ones sorted in a day or two leaving the main list as we are discussing. Where are the other 800? I've uncluded the 500 you highlighted in this list. I count roughly 3000, not 4000. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe at least one editor is working on the main list already... If one or two other editors joined in we'd get it sorted a lot quicker.Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld is going to hate me for saying this and his white cat will even more, but I am not out to give them a hard time, honest! It is my opinion, though, that BLP is only the most pressing problem. When I first joined Wikipedia, I found numerous bio articles that falsely claimed Jewish ancestry for the subject of an article. Turns out there are sickos (some of them Islamists or western Jewhaters) who get their rocks off that way. For example, they insinuate that Adolf Hitler's grandfather was a Rothschild. (See the undiscovered for more than a year vandalism on the Alois Hitler article and the hysterics when I tried to get rid of it.)
Some of them try to twist reality so that the notorious hater of Jews Cosima Wagner (Richard Wagner's wife) becomes a Jew herself (by falsely claiming that her ancestors were Jewish). They make stuff up out of whole cloth in order to turn Ludwig Wittgenstein from a baptized and raised Christian with several Jewish ancestors into a Jew and then fantasize in their delirium that Wittgenstein and Hitler had a close relationship as youths that turned Adolf into a Jewhater.
On some of the more widely read articles, other editors who preceded me had corrected the record. Other articles, on the other hand, such as the mass-produced stub on Moritz August Breidenbach or the article on Adolf Hitler's father, had gone without anyone making a correction to misinformation for a long time, or ever. Now, it is true that the subject of the article is long dead. But the damage done by having the world's most widely read encyclopedia contain false information is more wide ranging than just that. It is corrosive and harmful.
As someone who has himself been guilty of creating unreferenced "stub" articles in the past, I propose that "stub" articles of any kind, many of which are sure to turn into unwatched (but not unread) vandalism targets, be henceforth prohibited. Build it in user space or on your PC at home and don't put it into mainspace before it begins to resemble a real encyclopedia entry. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. I've come to see stubs, at least sub-stubs, as placeholders that prevent others from creating an article. I believe that, for a good number of editors, creating an article is more gratifying than simply expanding one. Different for everyone, but there's still little value to the vast majority of stubs, considering the next hit on the google search is sure to produce some actual information. Lara 19:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What you are missing is that most of my stubs are referenced and they are useful stubs like Ixhuatán, Chiapas etc. I've put several thousand articles like that onto here and I am completely valid to do so. Most of my stubs are referenced or contain an external links to verify it and could easily be expanded by anybody within minutes. A stub which contians a bit of information and is referenced is of much greater benefit to the encyclopedia than nothing , especially when it can be expanded often to good effect. The difference here is that a lot of people are considering German wikipedia to be unrelated to english wikipedia. I personally see all the different language wikis as one project and when I created articles with translation links I believed this was enough to at least verify the article initially and allow it to expand and be referenced in due course. Funnily I have a Hutchinson encyclopedia right next to me and a lot of the stubs I create are exactly the level of detail given on some of the entries in there, especially on towns and villages. Yet I see them as a way forward, however short. This project is about collaboration. Vandalism will always be a problem on a big and open site like this but equally it leaves us open to development by a lot of people interested in developing an encyclopedia like us. I don't think vandalism is a justification not to create useful and referenced content even if stubs anyway. A lot of my work is geared towards improving our overage of developing world countries on here and are not the sort of articles which are number 1 target for vandals but there is a risk to any article on here evne if it is a full articles and referenced in places. I think it just as likely somebody will add nonsense to full length referenced articles as they are to unreferenced or weak stubs. The difference may be whether the vandalism is noticed on watchlists or not. In my own experience I've found that fuller articles which even have some references seem to get more vandalism than stubs on here. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

I appreciate your speaking to Gavin.Collins about his unwarranted call for a block of AlbertHerring. Unfortunately, I do not think it will change Gavin’s views at all. Gavin is very firm in his opinions and interpretations of policies, and does not change them no matter how many people show him he is wrong. Gavin is still firmly convinced his actions were right and the correct interpretation of policy. [4]

This is nothing new as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins 2, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender and the associated links clearly show. Edward321 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Alexandra Paressant

If you get the chance, can I ask you (or the rest of the BLP Police watching this page) to have a quick look over Alexandra Paressant? This is a weird one, as while not actually violating any policy I can think of it seems to borderline-defame about half a dozen people (including the subject). An AFD about a year ago sort-of stabilised it in a version that at least isn't actually libellous, but at the very least it could do with a lot more eyes on it. – iridescent 18:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That was obviously kept per WP:HOTTIE. Seriously, somebody kill that article. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I typed up a response earlier and apparently went to work without saving. I believe another AFD may result in delete. The BLP problem is gaining some attention now, and the cause is finding greater support. I'm about to head off for the night, but I think it may be best to start at AFD. Lara 06:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That article sucks. It's time to relist it and BLP<1E it. Law type! snype? 07:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English.Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP Ping

Would appreciate a sanity check over here (Bernard Madoff). Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  14:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

More females on Wikipedia

I voted for you in the Oversight election. I think we need more females active on Wikipedia, but of course in many instances I can't tell the gender of an editor. Best wishes!--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hmwith is female, too. :) Lara 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have voted for her, too. Thanks for telling me. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Yea, no problem. Thanks. Lara 19:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You deserve to win, you might be a bobfoc but thats still a step up from all the other women here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.172.130 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. XD Thanks. Lara 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
What's a bobfoc and how do I become one? --Jayron32 18:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
"Body of Baywatch, face of Crimewatch". The IP's wrong, though, everyone knows there are no women on the internet. – iridescent 18:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
(adding) Wimbledon? At least you get a better class of person vandalizing you. – iridescent 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So, as long as I have Hasselhof's physique and look like someone who is wanted by the law, I qualify? --Jayron32 18:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it normally applies to women, but I guess we could stretch the rules for you. It's more a bangin' body, but a busted face. Hahaha. Lara 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
You're wanted by the Law, buddy. I'm bilingual. Law type! snype? 21:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean you like the tongues of both genders? --Jayron32 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfan club

I see you've got quite an unfan club there Lara, led by one of my all-time unfavourite administrators, Aitias. So you must be doing something right. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You're the fifth person to say so, Mal. XD Lara 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"[5]"... "I firmly believe that she would be a net negative for the project as an Oversighter". How could somebody be a net negative as an oversighter? What could an oversighter possibly do that actually causes damage to Wikipedia? Majorly talk 16:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
He can't demonstrate that I lack integrity or trustworthiness. I never claimed to be tactful. His vote, though, is clearly a grudge vote. That is what his questions actually evidenced. I hurt his feelings so he went on about baiting in my questions section.
To answer your question, nothing. It's reversible. Like admin actions, mistakes can be corrected. This isn't like blocking, where it involves people and leaves a permanent log to cause them problems. It's like the deletion tool. Accidentally make the mistake of deleting something that shouldn't be? Restore it. Not a big deal. Of course, I get opposes for that, too. Makes no sense. Lara 17:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Very little that administrator does or says makes sense IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I suppose I could have asked the question: "Are you capable of being tactful should the occasion require it?" ... meh, I never doubt the integrity or trustworthiness though, so why bother. "Too many cooks", and all. ;) — Ched :  ?  17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC) addendum - making Mal's point I guess. ;)
Of course I can be tactful. This is evidenced in my contribs. I just don't choose to be unless it's required for the situation. :p Lara 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Naaa ... I don't feel like "diff diving" today - I'll just strike my !vote. :P — Ched :  ?  05:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WT:BLP#WP:BLP1E

Hullo, Didn't mean that you were unclear, only that the reverting editor hadn't gathered that which was obvious to others. No offence meant. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. Excuse my precarious indentation there. I was actually responding to the reverting editor. The following comment, to be specific:
I recognize that I was bold, but can you please explain what it is that you object to? Dems on the move (talk) 3:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)
But I was one colon short on the indentation. I took no offense. Lara 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:2010 FIBA Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:2010 FIBA Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Aitias RfC 2

Hey Jennavecia, thanks for your copyediting on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2. It needed a bit more copyediting, and I appreciate your edits. Thanks! Acalamari 17:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your signature...

You wrote: I noticed in the edit window of the BLP1E discussion that your signature does something I've never seen before. The cursor size is enormous, and this makes the lines of your sig enormous. Why does it do that? Lara 19:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean since I don't think I'm getting any behavior like that in Firefox 3.5. Can you be more specific? What browser are you using? ⟳ausa کui× 19:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm using FF 3.5.1. Let me see if I can nowiki it. No, that didn't work. Maybe it's just me. It's triple spaced in the edit window for me, and the cursor is at like 72 points, maybe. Lara 19:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well let me know if anyone else has the problem, because I'm not able to reproduce it. Thanks, ⟳ausa کui× 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Im seeing the size 72 also its being caused by ⟳ symbol. βcommand 20:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty weird. Maybe the reason I'm not getting it is the native unicode support in linux. ⟳ausa کui× 20:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not getting the huge font - I'm not rendering the first char at all. I get a funky little box which I routinely see for unsupported characters. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not getting Jennavecia's problem here. The only thing that it does differently here are the strange characters, which are intentional, I imagine. ⟳ and ک Enigmamsg 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, not a big deal. Makes for really long scrolling when you've got a lot of posts, tho. Haha. I just wondered what was causing it, because I've never seen that before. Thanks for the answer, Betacommand. Lara 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there's some way to patch-in unicode support for Windows machines? ⟳ausa کui× 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The sig works on my Kubuntu machine, but on my windows xp machine ⟳ comes up as a byte sized grey box with 27f3 in two rows of teeny little characters, whilst the ک is much less of a hook and more of a broken coathanger. ϢereSpielChequers 21:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's a question for Betacommand. I, like him, can see the character, it's just causing the spacing and cursor to max out. I took a screengrab. It's interesting looking. Lara 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
here is a mircosoft how to to enable multilingual support on windows XP. βcommand 21:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
So... has anyone tried this? Does it work? I can't exactly test it out myself. ⟳ausa کui× 07:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I have the dreaded VISTA! Lara 08:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried switching Character Encoding in Firefox's View menu to Unicode? This might help. MLauba (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to do that, but it's not a big deal. I was just wondering what was causing it. Lara 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the five-line spacing issue on XP/FF 3.5.1 with the Unicode option set (it was the default). Like some others, I've not seen this behavior elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  10:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Elliot Smith

Why were you looking at Elliot Smith lyrics? Is this a screenshot from 1985 or do you really still use limewire? Law type! snype? 01:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not stalking, its called investigating. Killiondude (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha. Ah, dude. Yea. I was looking up Elliot Smith lyrics because I was sent a couple songs, liked them both, so I looked up some others and checked the lyrics. Expanding my musical horizons. Lara 04:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

a) I love Elliot Smith.
b) I can also see the same issue as Lara in the edit window. I also have Vista and FF 3.5.1.
c) causa sui, your signature looks really familiar. I can't quite put my finger on it though... hmwithτ 04:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You love all Indie music! Lara 04:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
1. I don't know who Elliot Smith is.
2. I don't have a problem with this signature because my computer was built in the current century.
3. I recognize the signature and don't like it one bit.
4. There is no 4.
5. See 4.
Law type! snype? 04:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Elliot Smith. Enjoy. Lara 04:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy days - IIRC my first ever Wikipedia argument was over Elliot Smith's relationship to Mary Lou Lord. (If the BLP Police want to have a look over MLL's article, I wouldn't argue - I washed my hands of that one long ago. Basically she says she's Kurt Cobain's ex-girlfriend and Elliot Smith wrote her songs; Courtney Love says she isn't KC's ex and she just copied Smith's unwanted demos, so whichever we go with we're implying that a LP is lying.) – iridescent 19:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
As long as it's all sourced, there's not much of a problem. We just need to be sure we explain both sides neutrally, of course. I'd look at it, but it's been a long day. Tomorrow maybe. Lara 04:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Indubitably. You have new messages at The Earwig's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 22:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

permissions-en@wikimedia.org

Hi, do you as an OTRS-member have access to permissions-en? Fjchrisk (talk · contribs) have uploaded some images owned by the operators of the Cage Wars promotions and he (as 81.138.2.225 (talk · contribs), signing with Chris Kelly) says he's sent en email to verify the license for them. Could you take a look? See User_talk:81.138.2.225 and User_talk:Aktsu#Cage_Wars for details. Thanks, --aktsu (t / c) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do. That's a huge queue, though, but I'll see what I can do. Lara 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I found it. Pending licensing now. Lara 16:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Indubitably/Archive_53&oldid=1172381921"