User talk:John Broughton/Archive 6 March 2007

User:Cheeseah

Thanks alot for your help; I can now finish the page I was working on. Again, thanks a lot, your help will let me improve the site greatly.Thanks!!!! 16:02, 21 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheeseah (talk • contribs)

One archive per DAY???????

Having a separate archive for each day is DEFINITELY overkill. You are wasting files. JRSpriggs 07:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki stores pages as database entries rather than as files. It's not clear whether dividing content among many pages "wastes" more resources than combining it into one large file. From the standpoint of disk space, images and other media files occupy much more space than text. --Teratornis 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team effort

In the spirit of reducing the amount of Wikipolicies and obviating confusion (see WP:LAP), drafts are in progress for a unified deletion policy here, and a unified protection policy here. These should really be team efforts, so since you commented on the matter earlier I would like to ask your help. The intent is not to change policy, merely to clarify and remove reduncancy; thus, anything that inadvertently changes the meaning should be fixed. We should be ready to move the drafts over the existing policies soon, but this needs more feedback and consensus, otherwise it'll just get reverted by people who "like the old thing better". Thank you for your time. >Radiant< 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome and adoption note on my talk page. I'm just getting my feet wet with Wikipedia, having felt like a guilty non-contributor for all these years. I'll start looking for good places to contribute. And your index is outstanding! Thanks!

Outside of Wikipedia, I do community research, mostly studying how strangers trust each other online, and I'm thinking about joining the masses of wikipedia researchers. In particular, studying what motivates people to move up the ranks in Wikipedia. If you'd be willing to talk about this with me over email, drop me a line. Cheers! Grammarnerd 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isaiah13066

Hi, thanks for reverting Isaiah13066's edit to my user page! He proceeded to add "You will shut up this instant." to the top of your talk page. Not quite a personal attack but not exactly helpful either... Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He struck again (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_Broughton&diff=prev&oldid=111479654) and has been blocked for 48 hours by MacGyverMagic. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki training videos

Hello, User:John Broughton/Archive 6 March 2007. While browsing the Web, I stumbled across some MediaWiki training videos. I made a list of links to them here: User:Teratornis#MediaWiki training videos. Would it be possible to link to these videos from your Editor's index? Obviously to make that convenient, we would need to make a page in the Wikipedia: namespace to act as the compact link target (e.g., Wikipedia:MediaWiki training videos), and contain the links and explanation of video players I put on my user page. --Teratornis 16:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started Wikipedia:Instructional material at your suggestion. I referenced our discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:Instructional material#About this page, and started a to-do list for the page. Hopefully we can solidify the page quickly enough to help it avoid deletion. Is there a WikiProject that oversees the creation of such training materials? --Teratornis 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Images

Please see the debate starting on my talk page, "Tom's" talk page where I answer him, and the discussion here.

I completely understand that WP wants to restrict using "fair use" images because of possibly copyright infringements and because most people don't understand "fair use" and will (unintentionally) take advantage of it, thereby causing copyright problems.

That said, however, (and, fwiw, I do have a law degree), "fair use" *is* a *statutory* exception to the copyright law. (For starters, see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Secondly, public relations materials are clearly produced for the very purpose of dissemination.

Thirdly, it is questionable whether a state portrait is even copyrightable to begin with. (A statutory requirement of any copyrighted work is that it must contain some degree of "originality", which is why, e.g., the "Yellow Pages" company can't copyright the phone book).

Fourthly, a state government that puts a picture of an officeholder on site, is clearly doing it for informational purposes, and not trying to create a market. An important quote: "an important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work." Hello? It's not like the state of Rhode Island is trying to make money off of this portrait.

John, I tell you think from an unbiased point of view. A state portrait of a governor is so clearly "fair use", and so legal, it's hard to know where to begin. To fight with small minds on WP who really have no idea of the big picture here is a real drag -- and, to look at even the larger picture here -- to restrict use clearly hurts WP and hurts the public. The state is putting the picture up because it wants the public to know what their elected officials look like. WP helps fulfill that purpose.

So . . . now what?

FWIW, I would like to propose a new clause in the Fair Use section of WP, something along the lines of this: "It is generally accepted as fair use, and permissible for WP, to use an image of a governmental official that appears on the website the governmental department of which he or she is a member. Similarly, it is generally accepted as fair use, and permissible for WP, to use an image of a politician taken from a political brochure or website produced by that politician's election campaign, if it is clear that the materials were intended for widespread dissemination to the public."

Thoughts? And, in the meantime, check out the discussion and add your two cents? Thanks, -- Sholom 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I have no idea what you are talking about. As follows "It is normally a violation of WP:TP and WP:TPG to delete anything from another user's talk page. If you do have permission from the user in question - User:Pascal.Tesson - to delete a section on his user talk page, you should note that in your edit summary so others know that guidelines are not being violated. I have reverted your deletion because there was no such explanation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)" --User:Susannah Mills

Editing via a school network

i am editing through a school network, you can't block me! fuck you 14:42, 8 March 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.211.170 (talk • contribs)

Your suggestion for my wikitable

Unfortunately, your suggestion for a nested table will not accomplish what I hope to do. I have been told that my goals cannot be accomplished for IE viewers on any wikitable. I'm quite disappointed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mphamilton (talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Seek Recommendation

Hi John-

Could you please be so kind as to take a look at the contributions of Wham Bam No Thank You Spam [1]?

For almost a year one person has been systematically deleting all Source links that I made for articles that I started or, or on occasion, significantly expanded.

When I recently began restoring them, Wham Bam No thank You Spam suddenly appeared and began systematically and very quickly deleting the restorations:

*On 7 March he deleted 10 restorations within six minutes.

*On 8 March he deleted 17 restorations within 11 minutes.

*On 9 March he deleted 23 restorations within nine minutes.

The talk page explanations of why the Sources are not spam are apparently ignored. What do you recommend?

Many thanks. David Justin 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Justin is a spammer, linking articles to his own site on the slightest pretext. One of his recent tactics appears to be copying text from the Wikipedia into his own page and then claiming his page as the source. See my comments in:

Hi John-

Thank you for your positive feedback. It's apparent who has created the sock puppet, "Wham." He has accused earlier me of creating links to my web pages to increase their search engine ranking. Not so. First, Wikipedia has in place a mechanism to prevent such a consequence. Second, I wouldn't need such help even if it were possible -- many of my pages rank higher than Wikipedia's.

The bottom line is that I help Wikipedia but it dosesn't help me. Wham's systematic deletion of links to my pages hurts Wikipedia users but not me.

Under “Links normally to be avoided” is #11, “Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.” I'm not spamming but helping readers. Thanks.David Justin 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John- I appreciate your thoughtful and very helpful comments which will enable me to contribute more effectively to improving Wikipedia. Many thanks.David Justin 16:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

On User:MikeURL/Credentials. You made the article a lot more readable. I hope you'll check in periodically to help as I incorporate more of what i believe is the consensus on this issue to the page.MikeURL 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I add my thanks for your help. You managed to accomplish what I could not. Micronus: 6 April 2007

Help desk comment

Under no circumstances was I putting down your point and I understand that it may have been a joke, its hard to tell really as it could have been real, anyway I hope no negative feelings were caused and that we can remain civil, happy edting. Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you make such a comment that I am a vandal. I apologize for what happened on the help desk, but if you look at my contributions, I am a very skilled contributor, with 1200 edits to this project, so please refrain from adding the term vandal to experienced good contributors. Retiono Virginian 12:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that I was a vandal on tellyaddicts userpage. Retiono Virginian 13:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: IRI

Sorry about the edits to the IRI entry - this shared IP is for everybody working at IRI, myself included. Whoever at the org keeps editing our entry, they probably won't stop. I would ban this IP from editing the IRI page.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.57.121.14 (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In that case, I apologize for the behavior of whoever's doing it. Nobody in my division, based on the other articles this IP has edited - Russia, South America, Eurasia stuff...

Al Gore

I don't think of my contributions to Al Gore's page as negative. I consider them to be more information on his current condition. Why is this a problem? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But wouldn't you say that Al Gore has gotten a little chunky? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But can you just tell me in your opinion if Al Gore has gotten a little hefty? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why asking for your opinion about Al Gore's weight is such a problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know whether you think Al Gore has "put on some pounds". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in chatting. I simply want to know an answer to a question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moldysocks (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN

Hi John. You submitted User:Hellfreezesover666 to WP:RFCN. As you did not ask the user to change his user name first (per the policy on usernames at WP:U, and per the header at the top of WP:RFCN), I have removed this nomination. Please ask the user first in future, politely, if they would consider changing their name; don't just submit their name for an RFC and tell them about it. There is even a handy template for this, at {{UsernameConcern}}. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Hi!"... and I was going to make the same request. But while I'm here, may I ask you to do the four-tildes signature bit when moving entries like that? I'd thought it was Leuko who posted that entry at WP:RFCN, because no-one else's name was attached, so I asked Leuko to read the top of WP:RFCN before posting there. I'm a bit red-faced now, since he hadn't posted the entry there.... -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This is regarding my posting on this page.) My mistakes are noted; I'll try to do better next time. I also note that Nardman1 asked the user to consider changing his/her username, at 22:44, 21 March 2007, and that the account was permanently blocked for vandalism at 05:25, 22 March 2007. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA?

Thank you for letting me know about the nomination if I had been online that day I would have declined it I currently do not wish to be an admin--Cylonhunter 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative outlets

Thanks for adding a link to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets to your editor's index; I had not seen that page before. As you can tell from my frequent advice to disgruntled editors on the Help desk, I'm becoming more convinced that Wikipedia isn't doing enough to account for its honey trap nature, by promoting alternative outlets for articles Wikipedia usually just deletes. I'm editing some thoughts on this topic on a user sub-page: User:Teratornis/Outplacement. --Teratornis 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the message you left for 1ne

Hello, John Broughton! I noticed the message you left for 1ne about administrators and consensus. I would like to clear some things up; first off, administrators are not divine beings and are capable of messing up. Therefore, just because an administrator puts his foot down on something doesn't mean he or she is invariably right. In fact, you don't even need to be an admin to close AFDs -- all adminship really is is access to certain buttons.

In this case, it appears the administrator correctly judged that a redirect was to be made. However, note the date on the AFD: 2005. This means they were judging based on the 2005 version of the article, which is rather different than the 2007 version that was created. When a new version of an article is created, like in this case, it is not appropriate to apply CSD G4, which calls for the speedy deletion (or in this case, reversion) of recreated material that is substantially identical to the deleted version. If you have any qualms about the article's notability, your best route would be to take it to AFD. If you have any questions, please ask. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're involved in the dispute over the existence of the article, I brought it to AFD so that it can be discussed by more users. (Also, a non-admin can technically close an AFD as "delete", just that they need to get an admin to delete it or nominate it for speedy deletion from there.) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Username policy/Draft

I would like to move ahead with replacing the older version of the policy with the draft, and have posted notices to reflect that. Since you participated in writing it, please take a look at whether you think the current wording is acceptable. >Radiant< 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Un-civil?

Mr. Broughton,

I have so far given you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you would be a partial administrator of the 'Matt Sanchez' debate. I find it INCREDULOUS that you would state that I was being UNCIVIL, all the while ignoring the blatant name-calling, rule-violating and propaganda coming from Mr. Sanchez. For example:

Wjhonson is another gay Jihadist. I have PUBLICLY stated that I am NOT a Homosexual REPEATEDLY and yet these fags have never put that into my article, however they have put the "gay hustler" label on me, although I have clearly stated that

1. Porn is prostitution 2. The films were directed toward men 3. there are similarities between myself and Rich Merritt AND Jeff Gannon. 4 I have only edited when these people have slandered me for their own pathetic agenda. 5. Who are these faceless cowards? I have put my name and e-mail on everything and they call me dishonest. Geez Bluemarine 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Matt Sanchez

1. So Mr. Sanchez calls people he disagrees with 'jihadist.' This is akin to Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a 'faggot.'

2. No need to make that stretch, Mr. Sanchez then uses the 'these fags' term. Last I checked, Mr. Sanchez was the one who had done gay porn.

3. Mr. Sanchez claims that 'porn is prostitution'. By logic, that makes him a 'prostitute.' Of course, I don't expect LOGIC from Mr. Sanchez's camp.

4. Those bemoaning the use of the words "rightist" label everyone they disagree with "leftist."

5. He calls people 'faceless cowards' yet we see the names and faces of people like Andy Towle, Joe the blogger, etc. Giving one's name and face hardly makes one a 'faceless coward.'

6. Mr. Sanchez continues to try to use his auto-biography for self-promotion, claiming significance for things that are unsubstantiated. This violates a second Wiki precept, NO ADS.

I would expect that you would have done more by now to make this a 'fair and balanced' situation. I don't find quoting relevant material to be UNCIVIL. I find sweeping the truth under the rug while calling people names to be UNCIVIL. This man was in 34 porn films, not a brief stint. There is ample evidence that he has been a gay hustler, including people matching his IP address etc. Of course that is not what Wikipedia is about. However, I do say Mr. Sanchez doth protest too much.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now Mr. Sanchez trots out the 'race' card:

Another one? It's the same profile of the middle-aged, White homosexual who has declared Jihad on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

That comment was made to Mr WJhonson, not me.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Guidance, Please

A fellow user asked me to lend him a hand with the Nancy Reagan and Ronald Reagan articles, as they were pretty overrun with POV pushing nonsense. Currently this user, a suspected sockpuppet for another user, is working very hard to place a poorly cited, and certainly damaging piece of information into the article. I've reverted it twice, due to the BLP policy on removing damaging info that isn't cited or is non RS. I am not sure how to handle this person, as I am going to run out of reverts right quick, and this guy doesn't seem to be acting in good faith. What to do? Arcayne 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject on Vandalism studies Study 1 is complete.

The WikiProject on Vandalism studies recently finished its first study and has published its conclusions (a full and detailed copy of the conclusions can be found here).

The first study analyzed a randomly sampled pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.

Currently the project is working on a related study, Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Obama article study, and is also beginning to draft up the parameters of our second major study (see Study 2). If you are still interested in our work (your name is on the participant's list), please participate in our efforts to help create a solid understanding of vandalism and information on wikipedia by contributing to discussions of past studies or by helping plan up and coming ones. Thanks. JoeSmack ^Talk 04:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome. I am on a wiki break from editing on article space for a few weeks, to better acquaint myself with how WP works so that I can be a more competent and knowledgeable editor. I shall definitely put your project on my watch list and weigh in to help when the time is right. Thanks again; Cheers.Ivygohnair 12:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]