I was already talking with you on the talk page, and using a post-WP:BRD-ian revert to actually invite Minderbender into the conversation. That didn't quite work then. Oh well back to the drawing board. Anyway, discuss on talk?
Note that How to create policy does not in fact have consensus, and admits as much implicitly in the body text.
Ah you just replied there! Hmm, future note, talk first, then revert, else you end up starting two channels! :-) --Kim Bruning00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than talking about "processes to demote policy" which we don't actually have on Wikipedia, it would help if you made an argument about the content of that page on its talk page. Analysis shows that (1) nearly no policy on Wikipedia was ever written using the methods described here, and (2) nearly all proposals made using the methods described here fail. >Radiant<15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say it "has been instrumental in curbing Creep" - got any evidence of that? It would seem that instead, it has been instrumental in creating creep. >Radiant<15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd be happy to remove all the parts that are bad advice, misrepresent actuality, or simply don't work, but if I do that there won't be much left of the page. >Radiant<15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, Radiant is wikipedia's one-man anti-creep brigade. We've always needed to watch him to make sure he didn't occasionally kill a process or policy that was actually (still/already) in mainstream use.;-) --Kim Bruning00:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not currently consensus to determine that the proposal is unlikely to achieve consensus. There should be some warning before placing a "rejected" template on a page to see what arguments are advanced for or against the template. You gave no warning before doing it. You cannot singlehandedly make that determination, not called for by anybody else, and then revert to your version over the objections of another editor. Currently, there is one editor in favour of the template and one against. Inactivity is not in itself a reason to say that consensus is unlikely to form. I am going to remove the template, and you can propose on the talk page that a "rejected" template be placed on the page. People will of course express their views on the possibility or impossibility of eventual consensus, rather than on the proposal itself. Joeldl10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it strikes me that if the HCP page was a proposal, then based on the systematic dissent on the talk page, you would reject the page as part of your cleanup of CAT:PRO. It would seem that this page does not meet your standards of being a "guideline". >Radiant<12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fine bit of logic, but flawed in that this page was already an accepted guideline, not a floundering proposal. This is one reason why I'm admonishing people to be careful about acknowledging proposals as guidelines since there is no clear-cut process for deprecating them. Clearly the precedents are that removing a guideline is more difficult than removing a proposal (i.e., protecting the status quo). --Kevin Murray12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you think it is an accepted guideline? Do you base this only on the presence of the tag or do you have some other benchmark? >Radiant<12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kevin Murray. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Charles Murray.gif) was found at the following location: User:Kevin Murray/IQ draft. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding rejection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout
Hello, Kevin Murray. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Discover Sept 1982.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kevin Murray/IQ draft. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I accidentally hit enter before I was done: a) Your determination that there will never be consensus regarding this issue is premature, especially since there are only three users objecting, refusing to compromise, and who are not related to highways; and b) Since you are opposing the policy, it is a conflict of interest for you to tag this as {{rejected}}. Get an uninvolved party to do this rather than doing it yourself. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you do not express interest in highways, and that you oppose it, you are no longer neutral. Because of this, you are welcome to discuss it, but not change it back to rejected. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kevin Murray. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Jensen2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Kevin Murray/IQ draft. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk10:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I posted a query at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (neologisms) asking about the discussion of the rename that you mention in the edit summary for the move. I'm not sure if you've seen that, so I'm posting here to ask again. If you're referring to the discussion a couple of paragraphs higher up on that page, which you and I participated in, I have to say that it didn't look to me as if we reached consensus on any changes. Did you have a different discussion in mind? Thanks. Mike Christie(talk)12:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin: I agree that there hasn't yet been enough discussion on the "Level Playing Field" question but it seems that we are the only 2 editors interested - by making the edit I was hoping to get some comment. Any orther ideas?? NBeale14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. Sure enough a major museum has now announced a photogrpahy competition which will make thousands of otherwise unknown photographers "notable". Shall we try the suggested amendment and see if anyone else can comment on it? Or can you amend the suggestion? NBeale05:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, perhaps my comment was too personal and shouldn't have been made in that way. But I wanted to warn Truth About Spelling that you have been very aggressive in your editing. You were with me by reverting back to "rejected" after I protested. The normal thing to do in those cases is to temporarily leave the status quo in place and begin a discussion. I think trying to scare people off from contributing to policy discussions is a bit of a no-no too, whatever the reason. I felt that there was a bit of a problem in acting as if seniority was the only important thing in establishing an editor's credibility to contribute to a discussion. Isn't one's own adherence to policy just as important? Also, there was nothing wrong with Truth About Spelling's contribution. He was honest about his familiarity with procedure but was expressing an opinion on the substance of the issue. So what. Why shouldn't he? Anyway, there's discussion, now, other editors... It shouldn't be personal. But to be perfectly honest, I was offended by your aggressiveness. Joeldl15:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "The concept of having bus schedule in WP goes against the concept of ignificant or non-trivial". I tend to agree with you, but Category:Bus routes proves that other people disagree. Perhaps we should drop one or two of them on AFD to see what the community thinks. >Radiant<09:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope all is well just wanting your help following is the last message left on my Talk page by User David Cannon
Your articlesJust letting you know that the decision of the AFD vote was to delete Turaga na Rasau, Turaga na Ravunisa, Keni Naulumatua, Keni Naulumatua II, and Mere Tuisalalo pending sourcing.
In practical terms, that means that if and when you can get a credible source to cite, as you have been planning, just let me (or any other administrator) know, and we'll restore the relevant articles. (They're still in the system, accessible only to administrators). User:Davidcannon09:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
with that in mind two weeks ago I left a message on Davids talk page but it appears with the message he left on his user page that he will be busy for some time and won't be able to respond to much of anything anytime soon, having said that I was wondering if you could assist as an administrator to restore my Turaga na Rasau article so I am able to edit it, clean it up and then add all my variuos sources.
I would be grateful for your help and feedback on this matter.
I have just created two new articles one being Fijian Religion and the other being Fijian Tradition & Ceremony, your input and help would be very much appreciated when you have the time.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Melges logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, a few weeks ago, you asjed if there was anything you coud do to help the WP:AIR project. If you are still interested, I have some sandbox articles that need some work to get ready for the mainspace. In particular, I need help converting text "copied" from other sources into usable, sourced, encyclopedic text. Rewriting text wholesale is pretty tedious for me, as I am usually better at copy editing and tweaking. If this is something you'd be interested in doing, please let me know. I have all my sandboxes listed on my userpage. The 3 projects I'm concentrating on right now are User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky X2, User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-69, and User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-75. If interested, could you take a look at these, and see if you are able to help? Thanks for whatever way you can help. - BillCJ17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:DavidLynchGraphic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot02:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support with this article. I really want to make a legitimate contribution, and I'm doing my best to fill in the blanks. I will find citations for everything, I'm working on it but it takes a little longer for non-internet sources. I only hope the article is not deleted before I can ensure it conforms to the guidelines. I'm going to get the citations, please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thanks again for your help! paprikaphd 23:09, 17 June 2007
I went back and read comments about the propsed name change. I certainly don't have a problem changing the name. The reason I listed it as "Judge Patrick Willis" was that I found several other judges listed that way. What do I need to do to fix it? paprikaphd 16:56, 17 June 2007
Thanks for the help, and the compliment. I hope it was enough to save the article! paprikaphd 19:07, 19 June 2007
We made it! Deletion notice was removed, the article's a keeper. Thanks for all your help! paprikaphd 21:49, 22 June 2007
A tag has been placed on Burger Boat Company, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Hey Kevin Murray, would you mind looking at your revert of my edits here? In my edit I bolded the title per conventions, wikilinked the town its based in, added a citation needed, added some hyphens where appropriate, fixed a typo on the word service, moved a citation from the inside of a period to the outside (per convention), and removed references that you listed twice. In the version you just reverted to, the three sources you footnoted now exist in two sections. It only needs to be listed once (in the reference list generated by the footnoting). Would you mind reexamining your revert? Thanks, Metros19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Current thoughts on general vs special criteria: --I've argued both ways from time to time, for the contradiction can be used to get any desired result. If anything, it shows we need flexible rules, because after all the real point is "encyclopedic". Current idea: special rules for broad groups, then 2RSs if needed to decide or if no other rules apply. and, personally, I would include anything in de WP except perhaps German local figures--I trust them more than I trust us here--but I do not see how i can propose that :) .DGG20:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert? Compound diff. The Cretan republics are some of the Greek city-states, almost all of which were republics - in any sense - at least at some point, Sparta being one of the few exceptions (perhaps the only one); including them is therefore redundant. The senses of republic on which WHEELER insists are all archaizing, being literal translations of res publica or politeia, which could mean city-state, constitutional government, or (in some passages in Aristotle) mixed government. (Aristotle had doubts whether Sparta qualified.) There is no real point in including that in articles on "republic", except as cross-references.
As for people's republics: I believe the standard position to be that they were Republics, without being free states. Tito, for example, was a dictator, but not a monarch; his family did not succeed him.
As for WHEELER's references, they are all, except for his Fearless Leader, Rahe , either dated or not English; most are both. They do not, in any case, belong in a list article, which is a navigational aid. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson21:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I have re-labeled Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability as a proposed guideline. I'm attempting to incorporate new suggestions from the Guideline Talk page, as well as to generate new discussion.
I thank you for providing a link to WP:ORG, that guideline is interesting, but not conclusive with respect to college football topics. According to WP:ORG, any team would meet notability criteria since they always are the topic of multiple non-trivial media reports. However, there are other questions that WP:ORG does not address. For instance, individual team seasons and individual contests such as bowl games.
These have been issues that in the past have wasted cycles in AfD and other discussions, and for that reason a guideline for the college football wikiproject is still useful. Johntex\talk00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, thanks for your note. Please don't worry, I understand your motives. You are right in a way, all these guidelines can lead to a slippery slope situation - but that can work in reverse too. We could just as easily say that we shouldn't have a general guideline on organizations (WP:ORG) because it could lead to someone wanting a guideline on college football!
It would be fine with me if we just had one guideline - something like: "ANY topic is notable enough for an article if the topic is the subject of multiple non-trivial works." Until we agree on something that simple then instruction creep is a possibility.
I would like though to respond to your tongue in cheek example of guidelines for bowling tournaments, knitting tournaments, etc. One answer to this type of question is to say that if/when those activities get popular enough for an active wikiproject, then it would be appropriate for that wikiproject to come up with notability guidelines.
You may be right that it may be difficult to get agreement on a guideline such as this, but I see no reason why it should be impossible. The alternative is to have these debates one-by-one at AfD. That wastes everyone's time not only in the debate, but also in creating the article if it ends up being deleted. For that reason, it is far better to try to get a guideline in place so that deletion questions can be settled more quickly. Thanks again for your note. Johntex\talk00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...for you support at my RFA and (especially) for your hard work on the notability guidelines. I know you catch some flack, and I can't say I always agree with you, but I definitely think your efforts have made Wikipedia better.--Kubigula(talk)04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (p.s. please consider archiving this page)[reply]
Sorry for trying to update WP:BIO without enough prior discussion. We do need something that notes that for major cities we typically aim to have articles on all councillors. Toronto City Council, New York City Council, Chicago City Council, Ottawa City Council, and many others either have articles on all members, or will in the near future. Something should be added to prevent the unaware users from nominating such people for deletion. I agree that the term "major city" is vague. Can you think of an alternate wording that would work better? - SimonP20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree that our various policies should allow articles on any councillors that get enough press coverage to write verifiable articles, but unfortunately that is not how WP:BIO is being interpreted. If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli El-Chantiry, for example, you will see that a number of users are interpreting the page to mean that articles on councillors are verboten. This will continue without some change to that page. - SimonP00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although we were on different sides of this discussion, I appreciate that you remained civil the entire time while disagreeing with people's votes. It's not that usual to see people disagreeing in a civil manner lately on Wikipedia (and I'm an offender). I also appreciate that you asked questions and directed (or tried to) discussion towards the issues involved with either keeping or deleting this and similar articles, in an attempt to develop future guidelines, rather than focusing on the narrow issue of one article. Thanks. KP Botany18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was "overlapping" the text because you changed its alignment from left to right in this edit, which forced it up against the edge of the column.
I set up those paragraphs up in columns for two reasons:
a general rule of layout is that pics in text should alternate between right and left alignment, unless they are in a vertical row to make point (e.g. they represent a sequence of events).
Copyedit form my page: "re: Lindbergh Hi. Don't want to get into a pissing match here, but this seems like a reasonable statement. Do you dispute that Lindbergh was the first to fly nonstop from a mainland location to a mainland location? Perhaps I'm wrong on this. I have only been trying to edit other contributions into a more clear and concise text. I don't want to be difficult, but don't want to see good information omitted without reason. Cheers! --Kevin Murray18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
Hi Kevin: In response, this article was the subject of a considerable edit war recently and I had to ask for administrators to redress the problem. As to whether this is a reasonable or not statement, it is not germane to the flight of the Spirit. Neither Ireland or Newfoundland can be considered "obscure" islands which were the start-end points of previous Atlantic overflights but nonetheless, the Orteig Prize was intended to recognize the first flight from New York to Paris, with a specification that the flight be non-stop. That is the claim to fame of the Lindbergh flight. Introducing an element of first "mainland-to-mainland" claim is fine but it was not what the Orteig Prize was intended to do. Raymond Orteig was a hotelier and promoter who saw the chance to exploit the Atlantic flight to raise the prestige of his hotel and incidentally that of France. The main notability of Lindbergh's exploit was that it was a solo flight as differentiated from the other competitors who had a multi-person crew (and often a twin-engined or larger aircraft type). I will include the note in the body of the text in the description of the flight's legacy but I felt that it was not the historic recognition of "mainland-to-mainland" that should appear in the introductory passages but the successful navigation of the Atlantic from New York to Paris in a solo flight. FWIW Bzuk19:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Father Goose and I have developed competing versions for a possible guideline on relevancy. I note you have previous participated at this project. Your contributions would be timely now.
My draft is the current proposed guideline only because I made mine after Father Goose did his. This is not to suggest either version is favored. Thanks for your interest... —WikiLen03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not a newbie, just newly editing. That being said, I can always learn more and I'd love to get your feedback. I'll make a post on the VP soon and let you know. I'm editing Joe Montana right now, so i want to finish up that the section i'm working on before i jump to a new "train of thought" so to speak. Many thanks for your friendly attitude, it's a rarity around here. Jmfangio ► Talk 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. A handful of editors basically railroaded their way over me and an entire project. It was a whole big mess and lasted about a month. A lot of nasty things happened and most at my expense. I eventually lost my cool with them and told them to "F-off" very publicly when nobody would step in and offer good help. I went to the MedCab, RFA, and a whole mess of other things. An admin even got into it with me (or me with him depending on your perspective) and then started using his admin powers to silence me while he falsely accussed me of things, talk about improper behavior huh. But whatever, one projects loss is anothers gain (well - at least i tell myself that to make me feel better about it!).
Anyway, I have not seen any "guidelines" in place for striking comments. I've seen small mentions of it here and there, but no real guideline or policy. Am I just not looking in the right place or does this need to be considered for guideline inclusion? I added this page to my watch list to make it easier on you. Jmfangio ► Talk 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, I don't really want to go down that road with them again. I don't particularly care and this person, and the rest of them, will certainly bring up the issue they have with me being a WP:SOCK who has been banned. I will certainly refer to WP:IAR in that my edits are almost exclusively based on bettering the content available and the I tend to lean more towards the "deletionist" attitude when dealing with repetative content. I am just thinking that establishing some guidelines for the use of striking comments will help people understand when it is an editing tool to be relied on. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, i'm not saying I am a sock, only that they accused me of being one and then found me guilty. It was a pretty ridiculous situation. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are implying but not clearly stating your concern. Aside from the past politics, I believe that your concern is that people/admins are striking out your comments at discussion pages. Is that correct? --Kevin Murray17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of, but not exactly. My concern is that a user is striking another users comments unilaterally. The fact that it involves me is imaterial as I don't care what happens in this case. I simply think establishing some guidelines could be useful to the community as a whole. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the instance I am familiar with is only on talk pages. Then again, I would think that the guideline could/would extend to all articles in general. The best that I have seen is a brief mention of striking at WP:TALK. Jmfangio ► Talk 17:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment at MoritzB's talk page, and looked bit deeper into the issue. Niggerhead seems to be a common term (pleasant or not) used frequently enough so that WP has a disambiguation page. I can't speak to MoritzB's motivation in inserting the term into the gems article, but it does seem plausible that it is factual (see coral) and that his intent was appropriate. I don't know the history of your relationship with Moritz, but the harsh accusation may be unwarranted. Cheers! --Kevin Murray17:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments and Ramdrake's comments were harsh if you approach the question as a supporter of white supremacy, which MoritzB does support. The role of MoritzB on many pages pertaining to race history demonstrates that fact.Skywriter03:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skywriter, I can only evaluate Moritz based on limited experience. However, we should remain civil at WP. He is entitled to his political opinions no matter how unsavory they might be. So far his comments have been in suggetion of Jewish supremacy which vastly differs from the mainstream white supremist position. Cheers and to better times together! --Kevin Murray04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of your appointment as defender of MoritzB or of guardian of civility. If MoritzB wants to race-bait, then MortizB reveals self as race baiter. Nothing uncivil about that if you like race baiting. Calling race baiting what it is -- is factual.
Further, you overstepped your bounds in failing to take changes to talk page. You seem to overlook that there has been recent active discussion on talk page of Race and Intelligence. You don't seem to be a big fan of seeking consensus especially in the presence of active discussion. The removal of the Melvin Konner reference will not only be reverted-- it will be expanded. The link to Amazon merely was to show his book was well-received. Someone else removed the citation which I will reinstate. He has a point of view not represented in this article, and an informed one at that as he is both an antbropologist and MD.
Cheers.Skywriter04:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that you not try to pain me into a corner as an appologist for an unsavory position. I am merely politely reminding you of the WP Standards of civility. If youd prefer, I'll just refer future issues to an admin, although I'd rather just keep in between editors. --Kevin Murray04:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you stop taking comments personally, particularly when they are not directed at you. It is factual that white supremacists as well as anti-racists are editing this article. Whether or not you see one or the other as unsavory is quite beside the point. Whether or not you choose to run to an admin is entirely your option.
Skywriter04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar.Pseudoanonymous18:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Triscuits and Wheat Thins are tied for number one in my book, but VERY close to Chicken In a Biscuit. So you need to lower your blood sugar, and I need to raise mine (hypoglycemic). Odd, but I have seen you at Guinea Pig as well. I have no idea what they have in common, but for 4 million users, this place seems increasingly small to me. I got seasick just looking at your contributions. Haha. the_undertowtalk02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you're very active in the area of notability on Wikipedia. I've asked a question here about actively demonstrating that an article is not notable. I would really value any thoughts or comments you might have.
As I've mentioned on the article's talk page, the photo could be a later Charger Loading Lee-Metford- it's not clear enough to tell. At any rate, the only real difference between a CLLM and a Charger Loading Lee-Enfield is the rifling, so as such I think the picture should stay until someone finds a better one... given the relative scarcity of actual MLM rifles, I think it's going to be a while. --Commander Zulu07:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem- but... you did it again. User:Staeckerbot/Suspiciousbox is being used as a template on the list page, so you should edit the listing, not the box. If you want to remove an image from the list, just edit User:Staeckerbot/Suspicious images and remove the particular line which calls the template with the image that you're concerned with. If you actually blank Suspiciousbox, this will blank all listings, which we don't want. Staecker11:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I 100% agree about these articles being unencyclopedic, but it's been "voted" they are. They've been up for deletion a couple of times. I couldn't believe there would be such articles on an encyclopedia and made a big fuss in the begining. Oh well. Thanks for the offer of the back-up. I get a little heated about these subjects, just because they attract all kinds of strange attention. Me included. lol. Cheers! :) - JeenyTalk 9 August 2007 17:52 (UTC)
i added gordon brown to keep the article more up tyo date (he is current british priminister) but mainly to show a more representative picture of brits. With tony blair in, there were 2 brits with light hair and light eyes (john f kennedy included), so i added a dark haired and dark eyed brit, as about 30% of brits have dark eyes and most brits have dark brown hair anyway, only a minority have light hair. Most brits have either dark or mixed eyes and most brits have dark hair.
I think the german pictures might need to be changed to include a dark haired german aswell as most germans dont have blonde or light brown hair.
Im trying to iron out national stereotypes.
about the basque, by all means keep the photo of this person, i just thought the astronaut was more famous.
sure by all means change the german or austrian, but i think a dark haired and maybe dark eyed german or austrian should be included, again merley to iron out national stereotypes. germans and brits are not much darker haired than the french afterall and yet the french person chosen has dark hair.
Your approach sounds very reasonable. As I say on talk, I am not altogether opposed to celebrities. WP:UCS. Makka Sagaipova, but not Tom Cruise, Margaret Thatcher or Saddam Hussein. I do hope you can further improve the collection, but I guess I got tired of the task: it's difficult enough in itself, but the bickering by all sorts of ideologists that comes with it makes it near-impossible. dab(𒁳)13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let me add that I am not opposed to galleries in general either. But any gallery with a claim to encyclopedicity will need to annotate each image, at least with the area or ethnicity of origin of the person depicted. dab(𒁳)13:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
an alternative would be using mugshots of Wikipedians who are willing to reveal their ancestry (Category:Irish Wikipedians). There is some room for debate regarding WP:V here, but I am sure we can get some good images in this way -- have a look at commons:Category:Wikipedians.
Let me add that I am intrigued by your self-description-by-userboxes: not that I'd agree with everything you say there, but I'm definitely with you regarding the 'beer' and the 'speak plainly and honestly' parts. We need more of both, but especially of the latter :) dab(𒁳)15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't used Wikimedia Commons before, it can be a little confusing. You can find information at commons:Commons:First steps. Briefly; you want to go to commons:Article and recreate the gallery there, and then link to the Commons gallery using {{Commons}}. If the images are stored locally here at en:, you'll need to upload them to Commons first. While this may sound like extra effort, Wikimedia Commons has the advantage of allowing every project to use the media stored there, and is increasing.ly set up to handle searching and rendering media more efficiently than any of the text-based projects. Unfortunately, I'm remarkably busy at the moment; otherwise I'd pitch in and help with the particular article in question. You could ask the person who tagged the article to lend a hand if there are a lot of images to move over or if the process is confusing. Jkelly16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading Image:Monica B 2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
It seems that some of the other editors have ceased any discussion and are blindly reverting any edit that I add. They have formed some kind of a cartel. I think this is counterproductive for the article. I am open to discussing the edits. Ramdrake has indicated that he has retired from wikipedia and so has Jeeny, so I think you are the only neutral editor who is left.Muntuwandi23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi. (1) I agree with you about no quid pro quo, taking each article on its own terms. (2) I do not believe that anything I wrote on the Talk:White people page (or any page) has ever implied that I think an article should be perfect. I doubt that that is possible, and the very fact that this is Wikipedia means that all articles are always works in progress. That means that no article is ever "finished" so obviously no article will ever be perfect. But the fact that every article is constantly being worked on/in progress should mean that every article is betting better and that was all my comments were meant to address: ways to make the article better. However, if you are speaking purely of standards, of ideals, I do think that our standards should be very high. What makes Wikipedia different from Encyclopedia Brittanica is what makes a free-enterprise economy better than a planned (and centrally regulated) economy: an economy in which everyone is free and competing to be better will lead to superior products. It is also the idea behind open-source software like Linnux versus somthing like Microsoft: thousands of people working freely and constantly trying to make something better will do a better job than a hundred engineers following some manager's directive. But whether you believe in open-source or Microsoft; a free-enterprise system or communism, surely people's goals are the same: to create something better. I would hate it if engineers at Boein thought that it didn't matter if their work wasn't "perfect" - what would happen to the American air industry (and, would I be willing to fly)? We expect the people who make our cars and computers to do the best they can; we expect the best possible product affordable. We shouldn't settle for anything less here. Wikipedia articles are very often among the first five or ten google hits for any topic; it is becoming an internationally recognized brand like Toyota or Sony; hundreds of thousands if not millions of people turn to it for knowledge. We shoulld give them the best we can. And: I really sincerely do not believe that several editors taking time to read books in a library or look through journal articles is at all onerous. It takes time and effort but still nothing compared to the effort that goes into most goods that are in high demand! It is a sad day for America (or England or wherever most editors are from) when people who want to write encyclopedia articles thinks reading book or journal article is just too much work! America ought to have the best education system in the world, not be second-rate or strive for mediocrity ... editors of Wikipedia (I think most are American) should reflect that, I think ... Slrubenstein | Talk23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some are from the "Dark continent". Jolie had facial reconstruction? I don't really mind about removing her from the picture, until maybe a suitable replacement is found. Muntuwandi03:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you have been listed as a potential participant in an informal mediation regarding a dispute over White people. The case page is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people. I am looking over the case, and am willing to offer my assistance in this. If you are willing to participate in the mediation and willing to accept my offer to mediate, please let me know. Thank you, Neranei(talk)22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, I saw your posts and wanted to comment to you that just because someone is an administrator is not a good enough reason to be a qualified mediator. A lot of admins are very young -- not that there's anything wrong with that. I do agree with you that someone who is to mediate this situation have a broader life experience, and knowledge of WP policies. Another thing, I think it's better to NOT have an admin to act as mediator for they have other issues to deal with, blocking, moving, vandals, etc. Mediation groups, or members, are supposed to know how to mediate and know certain WP policies for content disputes. There should be full concentration on the case, without the other duties that admins have to deal with. JMO. See what I posted on the mediation project page for more on my opinion on this issue. Thanks! - JeenyTalk20:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as per your request on the ROC talk page, I'll describe my views to you on trivia in general. I guess that's what you're asking for.
I got sucked into the issue months ago here when I saw an editor wipe out some fairly interesting material with an edit summary "removed trivia as per WP:TRIVIA". I reverted him, and pointed out that the guideline said "integrate, don't delete", but he was just dead set on getting rid of it, like too many other editors are.
I started studying the situation and saw how many editors deleted trivia left and right claiming the guideline supported them. And plenty more who deleted without bothering to say anything. A month later when Android Mouse Bot added {{trivia}} to thousands of articles, there was an upswell of support for trivia, and I tried to get WP:TRIVIA de-frocked, but was unsuccessful. I retrenched to just trying to change the line "Some trivia is especially tangential or irrelevant, and may not warrant inclusion at all." since it's an open-ended loophole: "integrate trivia", it says, "but delete anything irrelevant"... which is the entire trivia section, to some editors.
Although I got a few supporters in trying to change the wording (one of whom was Coppertwig), the deletionists watching the page wouldn't even tolerate even the addition of the line "However, Wikipedia has no standard for relevance." So I changed my focus and started work on the Relevance guideline. And yes, it does have to be a guideline, or else people won't let WP:TRIVIA defer to it on matters of relevance.
I actually support the overall thrust of WP:TRIVIA -- trivia lists are a crappy way to present information. But again, that bloody loophole is intolerable. And the deletion of trivia is in some ways worse than the deletion of complete articles, because the latter are at least subject to a debate (WP:AFD), but content can be deleted without any sign that it was ever there, unless you happen to have been watching the article.
What I've been trying to do here is assemble a reasonable standard on content that walks the middle line. Trivia shouldn't be an excuse for articles get disorganized, but I want to retain all content that can plausibly be shown to have some value, and give clearer ideas on how to integrate it, since WP:TRIVIA is very unspecific about how to accomplish that.
Those are my views on trivia, relevance, and on content in general. And those are my goals for the proposal as well. Equazcion is an "inclusionist", as am I, as are you, WikiLen, Coppertwig, and DGG. Of those who have expressed opposition to the proposal, only DGG has been willing to explain his objections and help strengthen the proposal's inclusionist foundations -- for instance, by spurring this edit: [3]. The proposal still needs plenty of work in the "content" section, but the more people contribute, the more likely we can find the right ways to say things. We also need to include more language in defense of lists and list articles; they've been taking a pounding lately.
Like you, I'm wary of using examples; I tore almost all of them out after the first draft. The proposal won't work unless we can get it to say straightforward, sensible things in a general way, and I was trying to fix those remaining faults when you and WikiLen drove up in a hearse.
There is a chance here to strengthen Wikipedia's inclusiveness, and I hope, I just beg, that we can get past our differences -- or is it just a misunderstanding? I've never understood why you've objected to the proposal, especially when you've said complimentary things about it in the same breath.--Father Goose05:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't mean to step on anyones toes. I can't agree to having some obscure manager of a multinational corporation as being representative of Welsh people though. I am Welsh and this person is totally unknown to me. There are certainly far better examples of Welsh people out there. How did such an obscure individual manage to get by such a vetting process I wonder. I'd suggest Tom Jones, Griff Rhys Jones or Catherine Zeta Jones as far more appropriate. I'll have a think about it and make a suggestion on the talk page. Thanks for the message. Alun17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put that picture up. I've been critisized for ahving too many politicians, I couldn't find a good picture of Tom Jones and Catherine is so heavilly identified as being hispanic at least in the US -- does she really typify a Welsh heritage? It seems to be damned any way you slice it. --Kevin Murray17:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand how Catherine Zeta Jones could be identified as Hispanic, it doesn't make sense to me. She's totally Welsh. She's from Swansea and became famous in the UK for acting in The Darling Buds of May on the telly. Take a look at her wikipedia entry. She also has an image on wikipedia that is copyright but states that it may be used if it is attributed, see Image:Zeta Jones.jpgTom Jones also has an image on the commons Image:Tom Jones 2005.jpg and any commons images may be used. Griff Rhys Jones also has a commons image Image:Griff Rhys Jones IOW cropped.jpg but he's probably not that notable outside of the UK. While the current Welsh person represented is clearly notable he is not very recognisable, even to his fellow countrymen. I don't want to fight over this so if you feel that it's good to represent people other than politicians and celebrities then I can understand this. Sorry if I cane over as brusque earlier, it was not my intent. All the best. Alun17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am posting this in reference to your post on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I have trying to get this serious issue across for along time now, but no one seems to be interested. May be instead of bundling those lists in I should go list by list and get them deleted. After the first few debates it would not be difficult to figure out most, if not all, the keep arguments, as well as the counter-argument. But, I guess that would go against WP:POINT. Well, after seeing somuch ignorance, while this silly lists proliferate, I'd rather igonre that policy and concentrate more on WP:BOLD. Please, advise. I am posting part of this to the policy discussion page as well. Aditya(talk • contribs)23:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on the village pump last week, I'm starting to move essays to people's userspace if they haven't been edited by others (not counting typo fixes etc). Since there's a lot of pages in CAT:E, I'd appreciate some help. Other people suggested deleting some of the worse essays, or adding {{merge}} tags as appropriate; I'll leave that up to people's discretion. >Radiant<11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your question about galleries at the Village Pump and I agree with your position completely. I've added some galleries to articles myself, both pictures I've taken and lots of old postcard pictures I happened to find on eBay's Web site (see Jamestown, New York for example). I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely sure, that I'm improving articles with these, but I'd be opposed to any kind of a ban on gallery sections to articles. If you ever run into any conflicts over inclusion of a gallery section in an article, please feel free to ask me to join in forming a consensus, and if I'm not extremely busy, I'll try to help. I can't guarantee I'll agree with anything, of course, but I'm generally pro-gallery.
I've been hesitant to upload images to WikiCommons, where the concept of gallery pages won't be a problem, because the stated purpose of that site is to share pictures. The old postcard pics I tend to upload (along with the pictures I'm beginning to take) tend to be for locality articles (South Norwalk for instance). I don't expect that most of these pics would ever be wanted outside of Wikipedia. That makes me worry that WikiCommons might decide to delete them someday. If you have any opinons on that, I'd love to hear read them. Noroton03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take advantage of present changed circumstances to readdress the split of the article if this is what you want. As a european (who incidentally frequently visits UCB) I find it in excruciatingly bad taste and quite unscientific. The separation into two different articles as Slrubenstein has suggested could
solve many of these problems and produce good and instructive articles into the bargain. Cheers, Mathsci21:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I ought to have been more clear about my own standpoint. My comments on Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections were meant to illustrate the problems or inaccurate impressions which arise when the expectations or notions inexperienced editors butt up against established policies and guidelines. Sometimes where such a conflict occurs, the response from such an editor is along the lines of, "I think Wikipedia should work in this particular way, but the long-established guideline/policy says it ought to be that way. The policy needs to be fixed, so that it conforms to my view of what Wikipedia ought to be."
The solution to this problem isn't to make it easier or faster to adopt, repeal, or modify Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Rather, it is to continue to provide assistance and guidance to new editors to help explain why many of our policies are the way that they are. It may be appropriate to include more reasoning and explanation in the bodies of some Wikipedia policy documents. It could be helpful to assist these users in finding resources like the Help Desk or the Village Pump.
On relatively rare occasions, a policy or guideline may require massive overhaul or repeal. In general, our systems work passably well under such circumstances. As a rule of thumb, the larger the effect of a proposed change, the wider the consultation required to assess community sentiment and to be able to make a change 'stick'. For something like repealing a guideline (on Trivia, say) that would affect thousands of articles, very broad discussion would be required—and such a suggestion is unlikely to succeed. Help:Modifying and creating policy is a good primer for editors interested in making policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you have seen the history of this issue? The older version kept getting tested because it isn't clearly written. The newer version remained in place for six weeks, stable and uncontested. Radiant moved it back to the much older language, including, e.g., "Essays tend to be opinionated." Well, yes, but this is not a definition. Anyway, obviously it is in need of discussion. Discussion is also at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Problem_with_wording ... Kenosis20:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of many templates that are designated as policies or guidelines :) The intended role of this template that you created (please correct me if I'm wrong) is to mark the designation of a Wikipedia page as disputed; however, this function is already covered by {{disputedtag}}. Would you mind if I redirected your template one to the other one, or if you WP:CSD#G7'd it? If there's something I'm missing about the role of this template, though, please fill me in! Happy editing, GracenotesT§03:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've placed some musings on the POL talk page. I believe I'm in favor of either heavily rewording the essay bit, or getting rid of it entirely. >Radiant<09:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Laminate sails.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"having an expectation of constraining behavior where it is a major departure from expectations"
Perhaps I should have used clearer wording: the mass merge proposal appears to be rejected, so there's no point to putting up merge tags. If you want to readd them, then fine, I won't revert it, but I think the discussion has shifted away from merging into just editing them to be more concise and perhaps merging one or two of them individually. --tjstrftalk00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy are you a trooper even for trying! It will take me some time to sort out what is going on there and I don't feel ready to comment there. I wonder whether the red ink editors are not sock-puppets, but it is just a feeling and I have no reason to make an actual accusation. There seem to be many arguments going on: can you pinpoint for me one or two very specific issues I could comment on? In the meantime, there are two other editors who I trust and I think you can trust them to comment constructively here: User:Stephan Schulz and User:Jpgordon. I suggest you leave for them the same message you left for me. Slrubenstein | Talk17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is, in my opinion, Original research on the article/(s). I maintain that Wikipedia requires that we state what scholars said - it's not a place where Wikipedians should speculate "Why so many Jews were Bolsheviks." Thanks. --Ludvikus00:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse "third opinion" with "mediation". The opinion was asked about a very limited issue: inappropriate page move. I have been repeating multiple times: I have no interest in article content and don't want to discuss it now. One has to resolve one conflict at a time, otherwise talk turns into a mess. `'Míkka18:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mikka says we need articles like Russian alcoholism. I deduce from that (in the context of his remarks) that he also believes we need an article on Irish alcoholism. I imagine that, from your Irish-sounding name (and self-image on your Homepage) that you would have an appropriate personal response to that. Whichever way your reaction goes, I suspect it will bear some fruitful and productive consequences. Cheers & the Best to you, Boatsman of the Seven Seas, I am Ludvikus00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question came up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism about notable religious figures. I understand you put the rejected tag on the proposal. I'd like to know more about your decision. Some things that puzzle me:
WP:IDONTKNOWIT makes the point that awareness of notability sometimes depends on field of interest and Wikipedia:Notability recommends using {{expert-subject}} when verifying non-notability. Given that this proposal is about religious figures, it would seem that those who study religion (i.e. the participants in religion projects) would have something useful to contribute to the question of (a) whether or not this policy proposal is well formed and (b) whether it should be stand-alone, merged into WP:BIO, or eliminated as redundant. There are at least 34 religion projects listed in Category:WikiProject Religion. Which projects were notified of this discussion? Of a pending closure? I can't find anything on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Judaism page and I read the page fairly regularly (of course it might be there and I missed it).
The rejected proposal was accepted even though only one of the participants in the prior discussion affirmed the rejection proposal; (as the one who closed it, you will forgive me if I recuse you from the discussion. Also you only expressed a preference for reject over historical, but expressed no explicit opinion about the merits of the proposal). Did you see a consensus and why? As I see it, this person's opinion is not representative of the discussion either before or after. There are a wide range of opinions and solutions presented including 3-5 in favor and 3-5 with no explicit vote:
User:Shirahadasha feels that notability may not extend outside of their religious community and the terms of the community may not be the same as the general population.
John Carter, User:Assize accept but feel the proposal needs reworking and they each invest time in writing alternate proposals (which shows a certain degree of commitment to their position).
User:Jeepday, User:DGG feel that WP:BIO should cover all religious figures because they will meet reference test.
User:Mr.Z-man feels criteria 1 and 4 are redundant. 2 and 3 are unnecessary (appearing in scripture is notable by definition). 5 cannot be determined without OR. User:UnitedStatesian concurs.
Wikipedia doesn't make decisions by vote count, but rather the strength of the argument.
At least two of those rejecting the proposal do so based on the quality of the criteria. This issue is addressed by two users who provide alternate proposals. We will never know whether or not these new proposals would satisfy the objections of User:Mr.Z-man and User:UnitedStatesian since the proposal was marked as {{rejected}} before they had a chance to respond.
The second reason was redundancy. Of those that express clear rejects, none are members of religion projects (at least as evidenced by their user boxes or categories. This is an important issue and bears discussion. But until members of one the religion projects agrees, I would be inclined to see it only as a discussion point. WP:IDONTKNOWIT and common sense would suggest that those who are not actively studying religion are less likely to understand the difference between a religious community's definition of notability and that of the general public.
It is not about a vote nor about persuasive arguments; it is about demonstrating that the consensus of the WP community supports a policy or guideline either directly or through practice. This has not been the case on religious figures. Despite having some support from the participants in the discussion, this proposal only reflects the opinion of a tiny minority of the millions of WP contributors. Policy and guidelines are purposefully difficult to implement at WP, or else we'd be drowning in personal opinions labeled as policy or guidelines by energetic editors. Despite your hard work and good ideas, the proposal did not gain traction, but that is typical of proposed guidelines. Kevin Murray11:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not work on the proposal at all - though I would have liked to. I didn't even know about it until well after it was closed. Furthermore, my concern is that the proposal was not given either sufficient time or exposure to make a determination of whether or not it had gained traction.
Based on my reading of the arguments, there was no consensus (yet) that could be used as a basis for closing. As for the proposal representing a tiny minority - we can't know that unless the proposal is well publicized, which this clearly was not. Finally, "tiny" is not a relevant reason for rejection when there is a risk of systemic bias by imposing a general standard on a topic that is of interest to a few. That risk makes it all the more important that we expose the topic and get a fair representation of voices and perspectives.
Also as a practical matter - we have 34+ projects that make assessments on religious figures - don't you think it might be reasonable for them to want a standard specific to their assessment process? The participants aren't all religious fanatics - some of us study religion academically and others of us (without academic backgrounds in religion) go to great lengths to avoid POV when writing on religion topics.
I have a hunch that you are a man who likes to get things done. Perhaps a month is a reasonable period of time to evaluate a proposal, but in this particular case I think it is not. September, particularly this September, is a very, very busy time for people who have religious interests. The Jewish holidays came early this year and occupied many of us throughout September. Professors of religion in secular institutions and Christians, Jews, and anyone in a tradition that provides religious education to children probably had their hands full with getting their respective educational programs off the ground.
Thanks for your third opinion. Yeah, I agree that there is subjectivity in selecting some elements important enough to be described over others. I'm unsure what you mean by "reviewing the song rather than just reporting the facts." I'm confident that everything is pure description, or at least, as you say, within "the normally accepted practices at WP." The article is about to be GA reviewed and it would be a shame to see my work disrespected /quick-failed because of that tag. As an outsider, per the third opinion process, are you able to remove it?
I am asking you to protect the current reversion of the R&I article which reflects your compilation of the various articles, for a period of a week and then semi-protection for an additional two weeks. With the best of intentions too much has happened too quickly including additions in a time where we are trying to consolidate. As the massive amount of recent micro edits was impossible to evaluate, I've reverted to your lat version. We really need some time to evaluate and form a plan. I like the KISS overview approach, but this is an emotionaly charged topic and there will be no clear path. Thanks! --Kevin Murray09:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see Guy has already protected the page. I think it's important to point out that while I tried not to duplicate any material when merging the articles together, there are some sections which significantly overlap; there are two sections on stereotype threat, for example. I would encourage people to keep chopping and changing things around to see how it looks, though in draft copies if not everyone's happy with it being done to the main article. --bainer (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{subst:nn-warn-Another detailed article on same subject Race and intelligence already exist. User can contribute there. Other expert users can verify importance of contribution from this user. Articles related to race-intelligence are sensitive.|Race and intelligence/backgound}}
Hey you recently posted a message on MoritzB user page. I thought I would inform you that he was blocked indefinately a few days before you posted your message as a result of his dispicable right-wing racism on wikipedia. Yours on the left Realist212:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In situations where I contact contributors to an article to stimulate participation, I generally try to pick arbitrary but objective criteria such as has contributed in the last X-months. That is why I contacted Moritz, not because I agree with his politics. One of the great things about WP is that the majority of contributors bring us to center on most issues. But even the most polarized among us often brings some good to th project if we can endure the uglier issues. Cheers! And keep up the good academic work. --Kevin Murray15:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm satified that the section we are working on is good enough to enter to the article, but I would have like to see broader participation if just for people to say it looks OK.
Ug. I know, me too. I wish more people would jump in and say something. Post a note on the R&I talk page that today is the "last chance" for this section and then we should move on, or else this will take forever. Can we get a mod to put the new section in?
Sorry, but after reviewing, I just can't see it. Too much primary sourcing, too little independent material used. I think maybe there will be an article to be written in a few years, but especially on a living person bio, should wait for substantive independent sourcing. Perhaps better to write about his blog? As to the refs, I think the AfD participants should see where the sourcing is purported to be from.
On an entirely unrelated note, there's a bot that archives talk page posts after they go stale. Pages this large can be really hard on dialup or slow-broadband users. I've used that bot for a long time and it works great. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Minnesota Public Radio spot looks like a claim of notability, but not the PC World one. Can you provide evidence of the reliability of the comixtalk site? Corvus cornix16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that comixtalk looks like it's independent of the subject, I just don't know if it's considered reliable. I guess I'd probably go with a weak keep. I'll go over and do that now. Corvus cornix17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to remove the references to his website and comix. They are most certainly allowed. You can quote from people's posted resumes, and you can quote from people's online biographies, and you can directly quote from movies and books. I am going to restore them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )17:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Autobiography is about writing a Wikipedia article about yourself and using your own unpublished memories as a source.
I wish I could help, but I'm seriously under educated when it comes to WP:BIO. User:Alientraveller has been working on some WP:BIO articles, you might want to ask him to look over the article. I know that it is a lot easier to identify sourced information if you use in-text citations, it helps keep the original research out of an article. But, as far as determining whether the sources there are reliable enough to warrant an article, I don't know because I'm not that familiar with BIO, or comic artists. If they talk about his accomplishments, then that's a good sign. BIGNOLE (Contact me)17:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kev. I've given my considered careless and casual thoughts, and I enjoyed doing it, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to vote delete (or more correctly merge), but that is certainly the way my thinking was going. It seems to me that the webcomic is the notable thing, and so it would be appropriate for the author to be discussed within the comic's article. If he creates another notable comic that would be the time to split him out into his own article - but for now, it seems possibly a bit too much. Though, as I said, I'm not strong on this view. Many regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archive your talkpage man! You must have the longest talkpage in the history of talkpages. This talkpage will become legendary - but it may burn out a few dial-ups in the process! SilkTork *SilkyTalk19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware that you have to have reliable sources to write a bio from. There may be plenty of reliable sources for the comic, but not for the person drawing it. Corvus cornix19:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, AfD is a busy place. Yes, we are all pressed for time and merging or adding cleanup tags for {{Tone}} tags is not always done when they should be. Then you have people making suggestions that it is OK to add 3,000+ unneeded articles and people wonder why we have problems and not time. For the record, I'm not the best bio person which is why I did not comment on the nomination, yet. But as you noticed, I did some trivial cleanup and maybe my edit comment will help improve the article so that it is less objectionable. Vegaswikian19:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for my opinion; sorry it took me a few days. Basically, yes, I think the guy is probably notable enough for an article, there are several independent sources. However, the article uses self-published blog entries way too much, it needs to be cut back. Mangojuicetalk15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Kevin. Apart from your having more hair and probably more money, you and I share a startling amount. German-Irish, military buffs, the list goes on. I also hold a Master's Licence and was a senior merchant marine officer for many years. I have found this is not always an advantage in naval Wiki work, often you have to let "sources" prevail, even if you know quite positively that they are wrong. Titanic is an example, there is much uneducated speculation around, and it has found its way into respectable publications. But let's give it a try! Rumiton02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like a reasonable article to me, but I think the problem is that it has so many self-referential sources that this appears to drown out the sources that aren't self-referential. I can see why people could interpret this as a vanity piece even though it isn't one. Perhaps it's possible to combine some of those source entries. HTH! >Radiant<12:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to you over at Talk:Rush Limbaugh. In my mind, this whole situation is a big misunderstanding. At first I am reverted (by mistake, I think). When I try to correct it with a more complete edit summary, along with a message on talk, not one editor deigns to even leave a meaningful edit summary. They all just keep reverting me, thanks to a sort of hive-mentality. So far you are the only one who is willing to talk about it. Thanks, 71.182.215.210 (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your reply on my talk page, the words were added as a partial revert of edits by 71.7.218.110 who deleted the word stupid, from a direct quotation. In addition he/she softened language which was directly supported by the references provided. Honestly, please see the revision history before charging me as a vandal. I did use edit summaries. By the way, I don't like being told to register so I can gain credibility: Wikipedia allows for anonymous contributions. I believe it is clear that I am trying to improve the article. 136.142.124.179 (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)71.182.215.210 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should all the other category levels be changed as well? (I.e., Television show to Prescription drug addiction?) I don't think these were supposed to be under the Rush Limbaugh show caption. 15:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.215.210 (talk)
Hi Kevin, thank you for your comment on the Veeramanidasan talk. I would like to clarify on your statement on "Ownership". Please take note im merely an initiator of the mentioned wikipage & ive been maintaining the information, picture, reference all the while infact its still under progress. A person suddently comes up claiming he is the actual ancestor of the mentioned wikipage and said he have the all rights to modify. The wikipage is of a living person (a noted devotional singer/musician). My stand point is simple, im not claiming ownership of which ever wikipage that i initiated. Im only asking for solid proof for the irresponsible modification with the claim of rights to modification. Hope you dont get confuse with my statement on the talk page. Im only preserving & maintaining the neutrality of the wikipage, since someone came in and make a claim, i left no choise rather then to defence my standpoint. --KillerservTalk01:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you actually explain what you think is wrong with the Rationale section? The discussion on the talk page is about a separate issue and does not apply to the wording of the Rationale section that you keep deleting. —Centrx→talk • 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any addition to a guideline or any additional guidelines which adds bulk without adding clarity. While I don't specifically dispute that veracity of the section, I see no additional clarity to offset the potential confusion. --Kevin Murray22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why my recent edits to the RMS Titanic page were removed. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression that ANYONE can edit pages, and as long as the edits are pertinent and accurate, there should be no reason to remove such edits. I would think you would be happy someone is taking this page seriously and contributing accurate information. I have read other comments on your discussion page and this same problem appears to happen frequently. I will continue to contribute accurate and pertinent information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow2700 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake and edited a page in a browser window that was not logged in.
As a result, my IP address appears in the History for that page.
I do not like this at all.
Is there any way I can remove this?
Thanks a lot!
Prignillius (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I accepted your apology over at AN/I. That is all I ever wanted ;-) I too looked at who you were prior to opening the issue... and noticed a number of similarities as well. Both of us are conservatives and I noticed your numerous Barnstars... so I am more than eager to let bygones be bygones and move forward.Balloonman (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words the other day. Yes, for now I'm an occasional contributor, and I expect to continue, but perhaps not with the enthusiasm I formerly did. Marc Shepherd (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the {{historical}} template includes the line about consensus being unclear. It shouldn't be marked as an essay, because it shouldn't be followed the way it's written. I suppose rejected is okay too, but since it was used at one point, my preference would be historical. I(talk)22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit to the 'Citizenship and nationality' guideline proposal, which you marked as 'rejected' and described as 'dead' in your edit summary without justification. Please note that if you do not agree with a proposal, the appropriate response is to explain your reasons for disagreement on it's talk page. Given that this proposal is only a week old, and that just two people other than myself have commented on it (one against, and one in favour), it is obvious that no consensus has emerged either way. – SJL14:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kevin. I think it might be a good idea if you actually made a general statement about editing on the talk page of the article about the consensus on editing. I could not find anything. I think if you started a new section with such a statement, that would be helpful. Then in the spirit of that statement, you could revert my two words yourself, but not the three wikilinks which have all been discussed. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be glad to provide some sources discussing the function of kindergarten as "obedience" training:
This is from the National Educational Association, which helped design the modern American school system. It reads: "Perhaps the most important lesson of the kindergarten is obedience; obedience to law..."
[4]
Or from this textbook on teaching elementary schools: "Disorderly primary grades make troublesome pupils for later grades." and discusses the importance of the teachers preserving the respect of authority in their students.
[5]
And this one might be considered a bit biased, but I threw it in there because it is nevertheless informative:
[6]
And like I said on Torc2's talk page, I think that any person who has been through kindergarten will remember being required to raise their hand to speak, ask permission to go to the restroom, walk in lines, etc. This is not POV, it is just the reality that nearly every kindergarten student( in the United States at least) has to deal with. There is no doubt that obedience is one of the central lessons of most kindergarten programs, and I feel that this deserves some mention.
Why did you revert the change I made to Race and intelligence? I see in you edit summary you said you were reverting 'undiscussed' changes. But both SLRubenstein and myself seemed to be in agreement that the word 'caste' was inappropriately used there, and you yourself added nothing to the discussion about it on the talk page. The article is horrid enough as it is, so surely cleaning up non-controversial terminological inaccuracies is hardly a big problem. (the 41.* person) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.229.97 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is you who are subverting the processes here with your constant and persistant POV pushing at several core pages of WP. You seem to have become a virtual single purpose editor and make little contribution to the actual content of the encyclopedia. I think that you should really take a good look at your performance at WP and stop slinging about accusations of edit warring and improper conduct. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I don't add as many articles as I used to, but I still do so, you know [7]. :-) So much for single-purpose editing.
POV-pushing applies to the main namespace, not to policy maintenance and debates. I have been maintaining policy for quite a while now, after having learned some of the ropes from mentors dating back to the founding of wikipedia.
I am quite familiar with the policies on edit warring and on consensus, having participated in their writing, and I'm pretty sure you're in violation of both, at the moment. Would you care to discuss why I think so, or would you prefer to continue on your current path? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, we have a history of disagreement, and are unlikely to find a middle ground here as I absolutely dispute the entirety of you last three comments. We have both stated our cases at the pertinent pages; others are now involved and I suggest that we each stand down and let the process continue with other participants. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would take me out of the process of policy maintenance, something I have done for years. On the long run I would have to refuse. On the shorter run, however, it is almost always possible to find some kind of agreement between all participants. Would you like to request mediation, for instance? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Typically mediation works best when people *are* still holding a civil discourse, and would like to continue doing so :-)[reply]
Very simple. In this case a legit use of another language wiki added interwiki links once their language wiki had a corresponding policy page. We don't have single logon implemented yet so they don't typically have user names across the whole of language space, and end up anon on en. This is a common practice. More to the point you should not revert things just because you do not understand them; you need to check the changes first. --BozMotalk21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Cal Yachts, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have now returned from the Bay Area, which was a little rainier than I had hoped for. I am currently being personally attacked by Jagz on the talk page of R&I for upholding consensus. He has said he would report me for vandalism for removing a confusing template that he chose to display. He has also decided that if a proposed content change on the talk page receives no answer in 2 days, that means it has been approved. I find that he is rejecting the scholarly approach advocated by Slrubenstein which I thought had been agreed upon. It requires patient and hard work; from what he writes Jagz doesn't seem to take such an approach seriously. He accuses me of debating for the sake of it. It seems that the lack of honest and careful scholarship is one of the main problems with the article. If you object to his editing methods, please could you reason with him yourself? He has compressed and wikilinked the Stereotypes section, which I did not object to, although he did not properly ascertain consensus. His proposed summary of the IQ gap of Rushton, however, is worrying to me: the presentation does not seem to be properly balanced as far as I can tell and no context is provided. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the edit summary on your revert on WP:CONSENSUS.[8] It's somewhat ironic; the way that we find consensus for changes is by making them, so we can't expect to have consensus for edits before they are made (see WP:BOLD). It may be that you have specific concerns about the edit, but your message on the talk page and edit summary come across as resistance to editing in general, rather than to the specific edit being made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"(1) fewer rules, (2) clearer rules, and (3) stable rules." I completely agree with (1) and (2). I find it very strange (but not surprising, in the end) that the Wikipedia:List of policies is so long, given that we have WP:IAR anyway. As for (3), the entire wiki system is designed so that things are not stable. Even getting the stable versions extensions enabled is contentious, because editing is a foundation principle. Moreover, our policies are not written with stability in mind. When someone writes a policy, they expect that it will be edited mercilessly and updated as consensus changes. If we were going to have stable policies, we would need to greatly change the way that text becomes policy in the first place. The policy documents already in place gained consensus under the assumption that any problems that arise in their wording can be easily remedied. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view of the project namespace is that it is a kind of small encyclopedia (or wikipedia ;-) ) about what consensus exists on wikipedia at any point in time. Similar guidance applies to this mini-wikipedia as applies to the main one. Some guidance doesn't work though. Like I would love to be able to make everything in the project namespace verifiable, but unfortunately, most of that information is in people's heads.
Also, since my first interest is in making as clear descriptive documentation as possible, I get very frustrated when people try to treat the project namespace as a place to make rules, and try to block other people from "changing the rules". In reality, it is true that some people abuse the project namespace in that fashion, but that it is not really intended to function that way. The best way to make sure it functions correctly is by setting a good example. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, you actually want policies to be more clear and concise? Wow. Don't you know? Here's my favorite example of what is possible, if there is mutual trust,and people work together, and use consensus. See the talk page for WP:SR to see how rapidly that came to fruition.
So now what I want to get done on Wikipedia:Consensus, is to document the process that actually leads to such pages, as well as pages in the encyclopedia itself. We should be able to do so in a clear concise way.
I haven't done maintenance at the consensus page in a while, so I started out by placing several basic core points in a separate section. This tends to get the juices flowing in lots of wikipedians, and several folks were indeed gleefully (wiki-editing is FUN! :-) ) gearing up to do a wholesale refactor (as they have told you), until you went and put the process on hold. :-(
I'm worried that you don't actually trust the process, or me :-(
Note that no, this is not spillover, see also my comment here. I've been maintaining that particular page for quite some time. I just hope I haven't started to feel like it's WP:OWNer ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of wikipedia is a very interesting one. Hmm, do you think that that my way of working makes wikipedia into an anarchy, or that I am old fashioned, or that wikipedia dynamics have changed over time, or ... could you specify what makes you distrust the consensus process? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The process for editing articles is different from the process for editing policy, though the major differences are not really documented very well. (for instance WP:V is unfortunately not usable, though I wish it was.)
You seem to prefer formal discourse, and strictly accurate wording. I have adjusted my writing to this preference where possible/appropriate, and will continue in this manner. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, we're both getting pretty heated. I have to admit I do actually have trouble discussing things with people who have a certain attitude about policy. There's apparently some fundamental concept that fails to get across, and both sides get utterly frustrated! It's probably my fault, but I'm not sure how to correct it.
Tell you what, to make up for it, if we ever meet IRL, I'll buy you a beer. (or, if in Egypt, a Root beer ;-) )
In lieu of sitting down with a person over a good pint of beer, I've had a lot of good experience talking with people over skype. It's not as good as meeting face to face, but at least you do get voice. Do you have a skype client? I'll send you my skype-id and so over email. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC) This does not void my offer for a good IPA at some later date, of course :-) [reply]
Your position on a number of issues is not entirely unique (nor is mine), so it might be useful to learn the reasoning behind both sides. On-wiki discussion apparently isn't working, but hopefully voice might work! --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. As we have not had the chance to have any real-time communications, we have now (predictably) come back to a collision course. I believe you have my phone number and other contact info? I can re-send it if you have lost it. The ball is in your court there.
Meanwhile, as we are arguing about Wikipedia:Consensus itself, I consider this something of a last stand to maintain wiki-procedures. I try to avoid conflict for as long as possible, but do not avoid it at all costs. In this case, (and with due respect for your own good intentions as well) if we cannot come to an understanding, I do intend to fight this out through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I hope we can stop short of that point! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello , Thank you so much for trying to answer. To be able to negotiate with you, to find a compromise and ultimately to find consensus, I specifically need your own rationale for your actions. I'm looking for some kind of grounds for your actions that we can negotiate about.
This is different than what other people's reasons for their actions are, other people can speak for themselves! At the same time, I also think it is unfair to you for me to simply accept a concession without any form of rationale as well.
You have reasons for your actions, and that is what I am interested in. I would like to respect those reasons as best I can within my own framework of reasons. That's how I hope to be sure that my actions will have your respect and support in future.
Of course, a similar story also holds true the other way around, and it is also true for interactions with other people.
I try to discuss things with one person at a time, specifically those who have opposed my actions de-facto (as these are the people who I still need to find consensus with) . That makes you a very important person for me to talk with right now. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'"OK Kim, how about this as a compromise?"
I don't know that it's a compromise, but it's going in an interesting direction. :-) It basically needs finishing. I've left some critical notes on the consensus talk page to that effect. I notice I've been a tad strict. I hope that's ok. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love flow charts! (Because I'm good at them). I spotted a couple of bugs and some room for refactoring. I left a note on the talk page and I hope you can fix them. (or, if this is simply the method that people use... don't fix them, and explain that on talk... that would be as interesting or more interesting.)
Right now I might edit, but on the other hand, I'd like to see full documentation of the method you are using to edit wikipedia. :-)
Sorry about the repeated points. I got caught in an edit conflict while still working on them and hadn't noticed. I just dropped what I was doing on the page, and proceeded to prepare a reply relevant to the new state of the discussion. Whenever you see (ec.) or (e/c), be suspicious that the text that follows might have some issues, but has been left for you as a courtesy or for reasons of completeness.
In this case, I was rechecking my work, and hadn't seen the chart change under me, you were that quick! :-). The newer points as posted refer to the newer chart and therefore may still be of some use, which is why I posted them after the edit conflict, rather than throwing them away. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you made the edit about documentation, I noticed we don't really have a good (if brief) description on the consensus page at all. So reverted myself and created a new section on that topic, which was probably the right thing to do in the first place. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't looked closely at this for 24 hours or so; it seemed "your" version was a more radical departure from recent history. Per talk, I'd probably be happier with a non-consensus essay than an attempt at crafting a policy to please everyone. -- Kendrick7talk23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to that version, but that wasn't otherwise me; I haven't been messing with the tags here. I can't think about it too much more now as I'm off to my weekly poker game. I felted a guy (took all his money) last week when I shoved on a straight draw following a raise and a re-raise, and they gentleman who called was very upset at my action (especially as I made my draw) because he had flopped a set, and so was drawing to a full house. And he was right, I was way behind, but if I played all day long with the fear the guy across the table hit a miracle flop, I'd be paralyzed all the time. Which, if you followed any of that, is the same way I feel about writing policy with a mind to how all the baddies out there might use it to WP:GAME the system. You just end up paralyzed. So I'd tag this as an essay with an eye to possible promotion maybe somewhere down the line if it sinks in. But ain't really the one babysitting this guy, so I'll see what others think. -- Kendrick7talk00:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening, Kevin. Thank you for your wiki-email message. I've replied off-line. I hope that I wasn't too incoherent in the reply.
Would you be offended if I asked both you and Kim to take a day off from editing those pages and let the rest of us catch up? We all need some time to filter through and consider what you've both said so that the rest of the community can participate in the discussion.
Hello, Kevin Murray! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.
The R&I article is being edited now. I did some reorganization of the sections. I think the focus for now is trying to improve what is there already. --Jagz (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you thanked Octavian history. I cannot believe that he was suspended indefinitely by Gyrofrog, an admin who is abusing his powers and who has accused over 100 people of being a sock puppet. Octavian history spent an ungodly amount of time trying to improve wikipedia. Octavian history is a New York Times best selling author and I think he has decided to not waste his time with sick individuals like Gyrofrog who were harassing him every day. Meanwhile there are thousands of people who are vandalizing wiki every second and gyro decides to suspend a true scholar who cared about the preservation of wiki. I guess the world has turned upside-down. But I guess this is just a reflection of what Wikipedia really is. Unbelievable!--Wiki-user3728 (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I just wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your flowchart-work. An example of where I've used one of your illustrations in a tangential discussion is here.
I'm interested in what you will say and/or do, knowing this.
Obviously Ottava Rima is responsible for his/her own actions, but this person was apparently following your advice, or at least your recommended procedure.
Please contact me first in case you're considering anything ... really interesting. :-)
Note that chart 1 explicitly allows a user to edit first. Chart 1 does not justify reverting a person on the sole ground that they have made an edit, while chart 5b can be read to say that this is possible.
What I'm mostly trying to put across is that this documentation work does have actual consequences for people. Due to chart 5b being up, it will likely be difficult to correct this user's behavior, and they will likely be banned from the site.
I'm interested to hear what you propose to do in this particular situation. Zooming from global helicopter view to local action, are there any actions you and I can take to try to get this user to become a productive wikipedian? Once we do, we might be able to take our experience back to the global level, and document our procedure for future reference.
(as you can see, ultimately, I don't actually deal in theory ;-)
I do believe Ottava Rima has some inkling about 3O and village pump, but nevertheless, they are heading for a ban. If you think that educating this user about these two items will convince them to change their behavior, I will request for the talk page to be unprotected, and I will mail Ottava Rima that we will brief him/her, with the ultimate goal of getting the block lifted.
However, I am not yet entirely convinced that this would be the practical solution. Wouldn't discussing actions like taking things to 3O and VP actually end up convincing Ottava Rima of the righteousness of their behavior (and thus actually accelerate them being banned?).
Do you see any potential alternate approaches?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)It may not be possible to convince Ottava Rima to sufficiently alter his/her behavior to prevent the ban entirely, though it might be possible to improve their behavior and thus their lot to some extent at least.[reply]
<scratches head> Don't take this the wrong way, and not to put too fine a point on it, but aren't you effectively saying that... You don't understand the specific case enough to be able to comment, but you do audaciously presume to advise people on the general case?
Interesting response. Apparently our views on both the genesis and purpose of policy differ somewhat. At any rate, I see this as an opportunity to explore and possibly set community standards (aka. policy), and am explicitly inviting you into the loop so that you don't feel shut out at a later date. If it is truly your wish to decline, then I'll sadly accept that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering a "political pundit" would be a political expert, and he is indeed a researcher in political science, I don't think it was much of a change. However, I agree that his political leanings should be left out of the article.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mediating/moderating the discussion on race and intelligence
Hi Kevin Murray!
We thank you for uploading Image:Phot Permission Sherman.pdf, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.
Hi, I see you've worked on this article recently. I'm a little confused by the precise naming, I haven't been able to find any references to "Cattle Health Initiative". I can find "Cattle Health Planning Initiative", "Cattle Initiative" and "Cattle Health Planning Project", but not the actual article title. Now this is admittedly a pretty obscure thing to be bringing up, but what do you think, should the article be renamed? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is not appropriate to cahnge names during and AfD, otherwise I ould have wanted to somehow make it clear and that it is a UK government program. I'd like to know a bit more about the scope of the program and perhaps look at broadening the topic. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the AfD has been withdrawn, largely due to your commendable efforts, it would seem a rename can go ahead. Picking the new name is still a conundrum. Based on this, "Farm Health Planning Cattle Initiative" might be the official name, I haven't found an actual press release. Mentioning the country is a good idea, but there again, it is a UK government plan but the program seemingly only applies to England, as farm health is apparently devolved to the other Parliaments. No easy answers here. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the 3O about KXAN-TV. I am curious, though, about some of the facts in the article vs the facts in the reference source, plus the fact that the reference source is a blog entry and concerns a living person, which I am under the impression is a violation of BLP. I have in good faith and effort tried to find better reference sources and just really can't turn that much up. Not trying to pick a fight; I'd just like a little clarification for future use. Cheers. Paxsimius (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for them, and you were correct that that was a typo. Unfortunately, in addition to being a careless typist I'm apparently also a careless reader - while I thought that statements were to be a maximum of 1200 words, it turns out that they're supposed to be a maximum of 1200 characters, which means I've had to take the whole thing down pending some serious editing. Thanks again! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"routine marking of obsolete proposals as rejected - feel free to revert"
And what gives you the idea that this proposal is obsolete (or rejected as the notice says)? Do you customarily go around marking proposals with 100% support as rejected without so much as saying hi on the talk page?? Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do routinely mark these obsolete pages as rejected. Rejected is a harsh term but it is the tag we use for proposals which have not been accepted. Please read the policy page on proposals. I typically prune old proposals each month or the list of proposals becomes clogged and worthless. If your proposal has died out you might want to advertise it at the Village pump or at related project pages. Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the idea that the proposal has "not been accepted" or is "obsolete"? Please explain. Per previous discussion on the proposal talk page and the fact that the conventions given in the proposal are merely descriptions of already well-established and non-controversial conventions which might not be obvious to new editors (and considering Wikipedia:SILENCE), I have changed the page to an official guideline. Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is an essay. I've only been an administrator on Wikipedia for 3 YEARS! Jeezy Creezy! And for your information, I have advertised it at related project pages, in case you didn't notice. There's no point advertising this on the Village Pump since only about 5 active editors on Wikipedia know anything about the Burmese language (and thus would be qualified to have an opinion about it). And also, this is not a Wikipedia "policy", it's a list of helpful guidelines. It describes already established conventions and provides valuable information to new editors who might be interested in editing articles related to Burmese topics. It's not about me trying to dictate rules to the rest of Wikipedia. Have some faith! Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having faith works both ways, and your status as an Admin holds no weight in this discussion. You could have just reverted the routine tagging and be done with it, but now you've made it an unpleasant issue. Just show a bit of support for tagging it as a guideline and be happy. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My being an admin holds no weight in this discussion except that it should be a decent indication that I have rudimentary familiarity with guidelines, policies, and essays. Sorry to have made this an unpleasant issue, but I consider tagging things without discussion as rather unhelpful behavior. Also, I do not believe that guideline proposals are subject to any specific deadline for approval. If you believe that proposals need to be approved within a certain amount of time or marked as rejected, you should propose that as a policy. Enforcing your own arbitrary time limits, however, seems a bit unilateral. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the policy page: "A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. While our policies remain ambiguous it is left to us to determine what is reasonable. No consensus for acceptance was generated and there has not been discussion for some time; the page was tagged with the edit summary, "routine marking of obsolete proposals as rejected - feel free to revert." This is really much ado about nothing. I expect more from an Admin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. There's really nothing to be done. No ill will. No problems with Wikipedia. Just...ready to stop. Thanks again.--Evabd18:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're all editing in good faith there, did you really do 3 actual reverts? If it's just slightly different edits, that's not 3RR, that's actually fine. If you're trying to work something out something complicated with Rhanyeia and I'm actually in the way, I'll take a step back 'till you're done.
No per my interpretaion I did not exceed the 3RR rule, but i would if I went further. She and I worked together in collaboration this morning but I edited her then you then you. Please see my message at the talk page. I'm off to crack open that IPA in your honor. I think that we've done some great work together today. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do take a few breaks from Wikipedia, as you can see...I am an administrator on another large wiki, and that takes up a good amount of my time, as well as real life work. I apologize for not answering faster. As for User:Gjenvick, I understand that I may have removed some of his or her links as I believed they didn't go by the WP:EL guidelines. If you would still like to speak to me regarding this issue, please do.
Sorry I didn't answer when I read the message first off. I am more than happy for you to act in any capacity in relation to the article.Londo0616:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI [9] Your work here was good, I think it got it all going well. Maybe the section on editing could go back in, I guess it depends what happens with the flowchart. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "troubled"? And I think I can be admin in about 1,000 more edits. I love sluts and hot young women but don't think Wikipedia is myspace either. JeanLatore (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dave has wrote several articles defending bonds against accusations of steroids and repeatedly refuses to give a yes or no answer to a simple question: DO you think barry bonds has done steroids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.94.0.250 (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. I'm familiar with MEDCAB although I've never submitted a formal request. On the rare occasion that I am in disagreement over an article, my usual plan is 3O and then MEDCAB, however nothing has ever gone that far. In this case, my first recourse was 3O, seeing as the current dispute is between myself a Trip Johnson and I was not party to the earlier confrontations. However, the user does seem to be in a number of disagreements with a number of editors across a number of articles–how would you suggest we proceed? Thanks. MrPrada (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ostensible Wikipedia policy rationale for censoring the name of Sarah Cherry (which has been on the article since inception and was not put there by me) is that the name "was not widely disseminated". I addded a half dozen sources to the article, including the NY Times, Village Voice and a best selling book. I think it is safe to say this qualifies as "widepread dissemination". John celona (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I first looked in and offered a third opinion, but have decided to stick around and help improve the page as an editor. Neither of the other editors is a native English speaker, so if nothing else, at least I can help there. Since my participation makes this a three editor disagreement, mediation is the appropriate way to go. I do appreciate your input. When I stepped in, the two editors had become pretty polarized so there was not a lot of trust. I personally thought the latest call for a third opinion spoke more to the editor's frustration with his inability to push his POV than to any inability of the editors to eventually reach a compromise. Mmyotis^^o^^10:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and thanks! Hope you have been well too. What are the policy issues you have in mind? Many months ago I was heavily involved in an argument at NOR - I feel like I said my peace there, even worked on some compromise positions which were accepted - only later to be deleted - and frankly feel burned out there. And a few weeks ago I think I was involved in a lengthy discussion at V which ultimately went nowhere. I am not sure I have anything more constructive to add, but keep me posted! Slrubenstein | Talk10:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing my somewhat-upcoming graduation. After changing majors a couple times, it's about time I finished up. I do want to go into business for myself after graduation, but I don't have any capital, so I guess I'll be looking for venture capitalists and angel investors. Wish me luck. Useight (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way you can full-protect the page for a couple of days. I am a new user so if you semi-protect I can't edit and the sockpuppets will run wild.
Eurovisionman (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was very happy to see you intervene in the Isis Gee debacle, but I fear you might be manipulated by this use. Please note that this user is using legitimate-looking arguments to push his version of the article, which is quite clearly OR and POV. He is simply reverting any change to the article, referring to the editors as "sockpuppets" (do I need to prove to you that I am not? dunno who to anonymous editor is though, maybe this is an actual sockpuppet, though I doubt it), referring to "consensus" that did not take place, misuing references to substantiate his edits (i.e. he quotes a "reference" which has little to do with what he has written), and another user has questioned the validity of the BBC player reference (can't access the clip myself, I am not in the UK which is apprently required). On top of that, the user attempted to wipe clear his talk page after I placed a lenghty reply there.
I know a barely notable Eurovision Song Contest entrant might not be of utmost interest to you, but if you could take a look at the involved articles' and talk pages' histories, you could perhaps get a broader view of the issue.
Kevin, this user seems to be a veteran vandal to me. He clearly DOES know about our policies, he has been quoting their names from the very beginning but in a malevolent way. Since the article is of current interest, I'd see a block on it very appropriate - there are many parties interested in defamation of selected artists for various reasons just before the final. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, but I'd hate the article to contain pretty obvious attempt at defamation of a living person just because we hope for a good dispute. Please take a look at the discussions on the article's and user's talk page - I have explained why I find the edits inappropriate. I strongly believe the original version is a better one to start a debate from. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin 1) I have done plenty of talking, Eurovisionman not that much, but a lot of editing, and I don't think there is anything he hasn't said yet 2) the only parties involved are myself, him and you - I clearly cannot agree with Eurovisionman, as he insist on his version beyond any discussion, and there is only you left. So, if you please, do decide. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP user seems to be blocked now, and per his modus operandi I'd actually suspect him of being Eurovisionman's sockpuppet if anything, used to purport his sockpuppet theory. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - Regarding the new "references" section: There are no references to these items in the article. For instance, the "Sail Magazine: August 2004 pages 54 - 57" item. Also, the "Catalina Timeline" is really just a nice external link. I don't believe we need a "Notes" section that is contains inline references and a "Notes" section that contains items that could be distributed elsewhere... The inline refs should be under "References". E_dog95' Hi '22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do tons of work with referencing. I typically don't include items that aren't easily verifiable. So the inclusion of "Sail Magazine: August 2004 pages 54 - 57" as a bibliography item makes little sense especially since nothing points to it in the article. It hangs out there alone. The article really doesn't need a bibliography section. It looks like you've worked on the article for coming up on two years. Why now? I just think the items we have could be covered more simply as they stood. E_dog95' Hi '23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are the first editor. Your style prevails. My POV here is that the article reference has little value as it's not easily verifiable. I am finding new references that are. E_dog95' Hi '23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No longer working on the article. I don't see a reason to have both inline refs and "general" refs (the kind that aren't easily verifiable). Good luck & no need to respond E_dog95' Hi '05:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for showing interest in the article Drug Policy of Sweden and your work as 3-O. If I interpreted user Steinberger correct, he now accepts that the issues identified as important in the National Action Plan of 2006 are relevant to the article Drug policy of Sweden which reasonably also means that one can write on relevant statistics for these areas. I have added an additional source to the page that I absolutely should have included earlier. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction: National report Sweden, 2006Dala11a (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin I heard about this in LBC radio today. It was actually quite funny but sad. Some user has put wording in the entry to make it appear that Isis Gee came 2nd last when she came last and had a very bad performance. I have added my views of the entry and hope you can comment. Polishchick99 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kevin-- I saw what you said in FMF's talk page & in his RfA, & I wanted to commend you on your well reasoned arguments. It is good to see good folks kicking around. --mordicai. (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the opposition got what they wanted, and when their abusive behavior shows up in the future, they will be reported. I'm done with them (Regushee (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Section moved to ATT Talk page - discussion Murray & Levy
A lot of work went into that text, Kevin, with lots of people participating over many months. It was accepted as policy, and was working extremely well, when Jimbo arrived to say he didn't like that WP:NOR was directed to it. We therefore had to have a WP-wide poll, which is a kind of silly thing to do because very few people knew the background or understood the issues, and Jimbo having said something negative about it meant we had an uphill struggle on our hands. Despite that, we got a majority in favour, but not enough to gain consensus. Therefore, the thing has become political, rather than only to do with policy, which is a great pity, but I think it means it was a lost opportunity -- lost for the foreseeable future. For that reason alone, I think the text needs to just be left as the summary it was. But if the effort to establish it as policy is to be revived, we need to respect the amount of work that went into it before, and also contact the people who wrote it to get their input before changing things wholesale. Alternatively, you could start an entirely fresh proposal. SlimVirgintalk|edits17:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't really tag it as failed, because it's an accurate summary of two valid policies. Jimbo's suggestion was that we regard V and NOR as policy, and ATT as a "canonical summary" of them, useful for people who want to see on one page what the policies say. So it's not failed, it's not a proposal, and it's not an essay. That's why we created a unique tag for it. SlimVirgintalk|edits17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ATT had nothing to do with N. It was developed because people (especially new editors) were often confused about the difference between WP:NOR and WP:V, and were confused about the way "verifiability" was used, so we created one policy to replace those two. Essentially it is just those two policies on one page, plus using the idea of "attribution," instead of V. We also hoped to get rid of WP:RS by having an ATT/FAQ page, so that editors would have a one-stop shop. It's still used as a very useful summary, so I really see no reason to mess around with it — unless you're thinking of reviving it, but I'm not sure I'd advise that. SlimVirgintalk|edits19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kevin, for your comment about privacy. As for the policies, I do agree they should be clearer, but it's very difficult to gain consensus for any change, except for tweaks here or there. SlimVirgintalk|edits21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What software did you use to generate those two graphs at WP:VP (Policy) today? I want to use it to make a more fair version of the original graph I complained about. Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you find incorrect or needing rebutal? I am always willing to retract something I said, if I am in error... but at this point, I don't see that I am. I am tired of both sides in this debate mistating the facts about what occured in the past... so I thought it would be helpful to state what did happen. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin... I need a reason beyond "because I asked you to." If there is seriously a problem with my history of ATT, tell me what it is. WHY do you want me to remove it? Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry... I don't think you are trolling my talk page. Actually I think we are in very close agreement on goal... and are just disagreeing on how to get there. I posted the history because of a flurry of posts saying 'but we decided this a year ago'... I felt it was needed to explain that this was not decided "back then"... so we have to do so NOW. We need to determine the current consensus. In any case... I read your comment and it sums up what I said quite well. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These seem at odds with Talk:Mya (unit), which I believe had consensus. The others all had pointers on their talk to that talk page.
Your edits:
2008-06-12T21:11:05 (hist) (diff) Annum (no consensus to merge) (top)
2008-06-12T21:10:19 (hist) (diff) Byr (no consensus to merge) (top)
2008-06-12T21:09:56 (hist) (diff) Bya (no consensus to merge) (top)
2008-06-12T21:09:29 (hist) (diff) Mya (unit) (no consensus to merge) (top)
2008-06-12T21:08:48 (hist) (diff) Kyr (no consensus to merge) (top)
2008-06-12T21:08:27 (hist) (diff) Tya (no consensus to merge) (top)
What is it you think was missing? LeadSongDog (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just clearing out the backlog of merge tags. These tags were old and I missed the discussion which was not labled specifically as a "merge" discussion, a limitation to a bulk process. If you feel that the mergers should happen just do it. There was plenty of time for discussion and objecion. Be bold and good luck. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I figured as much. I must admit I've been somewhat intimidated about the mechanics of doing a multi-merge with such wide reach. I'd kind of hoped someone from a project would step in. Wishful thinking I suppose. LeadSongDog (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how non-partisan the tagging of rejected is, especially as you voted that way. I don't think you should've unilaterally closed the debate (which, at 22-24, was nowhere near snowball territory) - that's why I undid you. Please don't do it again. Sceptre(talk)01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted your watering down of WP:N on the grounds that WP:V already stipulates that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it".--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we're done. 842U and some of the other folks have found a common cooperation, rather than finding, ground, in performing a large-scale merge that's been long overdue, so I guess it's now alrite!
While wholeheartedly recommending to close the case, I would also like to express my personal gratitude for your patience and bearing with us over its course, and conducting it with a perfect mixture of impartiality and common sense.
Also huge thanks for getting involved in the Isis Gee debacle as a by-product. You are definitely one of the most valuable and reliable contributors to the community. I feel indeed thankful for having the opportunity to interact with you.
I mentioned our chat to my uncle, who had this to say:
Me: "Check out how similar the pics are."
My uncle: "But he has no beer can. I can't imagine what similarity you see...The 380 he owns is a really nice boat. A bit bigger than ours. Emeryville yacht harbor is very similarly located to South Beach Harbor in SF: from one you can get to the other: just go across the bay bridge and turn left for a half mile. same directions from either place."
Hey. I just wanted to thank you for being pretty reasonable about these notability discussions. If you might recall, we engaged in a lot of debate with people digging in on their own interpretations. Once this stagnated, people could finally see that no progress was being made, and then the proposals started. I think we had to hit "no consensus" first before the compromises started to happen. A lot of proposals for compromise have come forward since then. And all signs seem to point towards a WP:RFC that will solicit feedback about notability on a mass scale.
User:Masem put together a RFC proposal. We haven't decided how to proceed on it, but it does not include any of the proposals anyone worked on. I fear that restarting the discussion at a general level will just lead us back to "no consensus", and at a much slower bureaucratic pace. A number of people share that fear. As such, I've gained support for an alternative RFC proposal.
My RFC proposal includes every single proposal that was put forth. Take a look. It's still a work in progress, but the basic form is there. People generally think this proposal will be more productive because takes advantage of the fact that we collectively moved the discussion forward (by offering concrete proposals for compromise). But the same people also agree that this RFC page is less readable than Masem's because it just has too much information for the average disinterested wikipedian. My RFC page is almost twice as long as Masem's!
I'm not sure that we're even going to go with my RFC proposal. But if we do, I wanted to ask if you would consider withdrawing one of your proposals, particularly the one that essentially states "Reader interest can establish notability". (Admittedly, I may have butchered it by trying to sum it up.) I just don't think it will gain support, and I think it's going to be hard to objectify "reader interest". If you would withdraw this one proposal, it would shorten the RFC page and improve our organization and focus. (As an aside, your other proposal for "protected link-stub" would remain, no matter what.) You might be doing this process a big favor by withdrawing this one. But if you don't want to, I understand, and we'll wait to see what a consensus of other editors say.
Hi Kevin. I see this edit of yours tagged a proposal failed. What I don't see is how the "reasonable time" is arrived at. The topic seems to have been revived on WP:ANI. Your input would be useful.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(relocated) I routinely go through the list of proposals and tag some failed since they have been abandoned or if they seem to have failed based on the criteria at WP:Policies and guidelines. I don't have a strong opinion on your project and see no reason not to revert my tagging based on your good judgment. One thought is that it might be more properly worked into a manual of style, rather than a stand alone guideline. Have you advertised it at the Village pump for greater feedback? Good luck! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's not remotely my project, but it seemed to be causing a fair fuss, so it got my curiosity piqued. I've long been bugged by the seeming lack of clarity around what constitutes WP:CONCENSUS (although there seems to be lots of info on what doesn't!) But what I was after was an idea of how long was reasonable. Is there some policy that speaks to it, or just a judgement call? LeadSongDog (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, we don't have a specific criterion for what is reasonable, and without it we get unreasonable interpretations of what is reasonable. You might take a peak at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) where in my mind a reasonable period has long since expired, but the proposal lingers. Consensus is a farce. WP is confusion in the name of civility, but generally it all works out in the end with a combination of good sense, camaraderie, bold action and compromise. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at WP:FICT you added "So instead of having an edit war you just edit war. Interesting solution?". I also started a talk discussion on the topic at the same time. I don't mind you reverting, but I do think if you are willing to revert, you should also be willing to talk about it. Hobit (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because discussion about it is still on-going. A single version of it failed. But frankly if you put WP:PROF or all sorts of other guidelines up for a !vote, I think you'd find that they too would suffer a similar fate. It can't be failed because the current version failed. And it can't be historical as nothing (yet) has taken its place and there isn't consensus that nothing is needed. An essay is possible, but I don't think inclusion "rules" are generally essays, so that doesn't make much sense either. So I think the best label for it is "proposed".
Perhaps we cheat and go with a non-standard tag that explains the history. "On or about date XXXX this guideline became contested and no consensus has evolved as to what it should be now. Discussion is ongoing at X, Y and Z." If that notion works for you then I'm pretty mellow about the wording. Hobit (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we seem to disagree on a number of issues. I think topic-specific guidelines are exactly what are needed. Different areas have different definitions of notability. In any case, perhaps we should post something at the WP:N discussion to figure out what exactly others think. thoughts? Hobit (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to better understand your reasons for adding back the link, and further my explaination of why I had removed it. If you can further explain your reasons - perhaps I overlooked something (it has certainly happened before, and will happen again to be sure) - I just want to more clearly see your interpretation of the value of the links.
For my reasons to have removed it ... when I look at the content, the only thing it contains that's not already documented at least as well in other links (either EL or ref) are the photo albums, and the advertising links and the community forum - the last two are never reasons for a link to remain, and the photos are more curiosities rather than anything to expand understanding of the article. Then when I looked at the editor who had added the link, they haven't made any content edits, their sole edits have been to post this external link to several articles; which is why I also posted about the link at WT:WPSPAM. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey KM, I laughed out loud at the recent proposal; (and definitely fully support the good anti-CREEP work you are doing with notability), but I think adding it to the notability guide template borders on the disruptive. I suggest you self-revert before folks get too upset (and you lose some of the deep well of goodwill you have built up from your notability work). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see duplicate McMahan (hedge fund mogul) article posted by controversial editor who is part of Wiki seduction project. Contacting you via original user name for this article which finally had some editorial resolution as you surely recall. Seems to be deliberately provoking and malicious by an editor who has been blocked previously and has had many articles nominated for deletion, controversy re: barnstars he awards himself, etc. Suggested course of action? There already is an article regarding this subject though I still would say it should have been deleted way back when. I still don't believe the original article fits the criteria for notability on Wikipedia. Type FiveType Five (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin. I use that template sometimes, but essentially I don't see a difference when all I see at the bottom of an article is a list of books with no indication where the article content came from. As far as I'm concerned if a book is given, but not cited using a page number, it is just an invitation for me to read it so I can figure out what the original author of the article meant. As it is I have enough reading to do, so I simply change the section References to Recommended reading in the hope that other editors may wish to contribute their time also--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of what this is, a project to take our existing policies and hack them down, counting on the experience of editors to know what is important enough to keep, what can be reworded, and what is redundant and can be removed. If that's not quite what you're aiming for, then I'm not certain what you're getting at. Hersfold(t/a/c)17:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On this, I'm beginning to discuss the specifics on a thread on my talk page called "DNB tool". I think this should give you an idea of what's required. (It is with Magnus Manske, who first wrote MediaWiki, so he may have some improvements to suggest!). Charles Matthews (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on this subject: [[11]]. I have posted this on WP:3, but it has yet to be addressed. Disagreement is regarding a clearly biased, second-party, self-published source in the introduction. Further, the content cited from this source (which does not meet WP standards) is a biased interpretation of what the source itself states. It should clearly be removed, as I have done repeatedly, but is has been repeatedly restored. 3RR rules requires someone independent to comment. If you are impartial regarding the subject, your opinion on the source is appreciated.--E8 (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Resolved - delete or archive at your leisure.--E8 (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, It looks like your propposal to merge Hoagie to Sub did not receive enough support to demonstrate consensus after a week. You might try submitting an AfD with the recommendation of a merger as the outcome; however, with the amount of current references and those likely to be found with further research, I suspect that an AfD would not prevail. I watch this article for vandalism and POV on a regular basis; while trying to remain objective on the varied opinions, I try to keep the article on an encyclopedic track. That being said, this article is due for a major cleanup again.
Kevin, please show WP:Good faith while editing the Hoagie article. Unilaterally shutting down my RFC after a week when they go for 30 days, and falsely claiming That I "did not receive enough support" when I was in fact AHEAD 6 to 3, and constantly removing the perfectly valid photo of a Hoagie from Subway, are NOT what I would call showing "Good Faith". Thanks! BillyTFried (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Billy, I admit that I missed the count on the RfC as it was strangely formatted. It is now clear that there is more support for that merger than I assessed, though RfC is a demonstration for consensus it is not purely a vote. To merge a long standing article you will need more than a simple majority. As to the picture, it fine but the reference to subway must go as spam. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Wikiapples screwed up the whole thing and I had to fix it. The reference to Subway should stay. It is not spam. It is an illustration of the world-wide availability of Hoagies, which some of my fellow NJ-NY-PA natives would like to falsely claim are not hoagies, and that you can only get "real" Hoagies from that region. Read the opening paragraph that I revised today to clarify that hoagies are available not just in NY-NJ-PA, but all over the US and because of Subway and Quinzos... all over the world. That, I believe is very relevant to the topic. It doesn't need to be removed any more than the pic and ref of a Burger King burger needs to be removed from the hamburger article. If so, THIS would be spam beyond belief. BillyTFried (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I modified the caption to remove the Subway reference, but won't oppose the return of your text for now. I'd prefer seeing the discussion of the widespread availability handled another way in a rewrite, but that is pending on the success of the merger. I didn't mean to get contentious with you; I was looking for a compromise and didn’t realize you were vested in the photo-- I don't have strong feelings on this just keep an eye on it since it seems to be an orphan-article that attracts a lot of POV.
I don’t see this as hugely important as a sandwich article, but very interesting historically as to the various explanations of the name. I stumbled here months ago working on shipping articles as a result of a reference from the Hog Island shipyard article. Shipping and especially as it relates to SF Bay is among my areas of interest.
Yeah, sorry if I was a bit aggressive. I am somewhat personally attached I guess. Of course since high school or so I knew of Subway and what not, but until I moved out of NJ at age 31, I actually had no idea that pretty much nobody else anywhere called them Hoagies. Then I checked Wikipedia and was stunned by the article that was clearly written by former neighbors of mine pretty much claiming Hoagies were some kind of unique special variety of a sandwich that's not related to Subs at all. It was ridiculous how the article was a few months ago. It also seemed that a good number of people tried in the past to fix and/or merge it with Subs but got ganged up on by NY-NJ-PA folks who shut them down. That ain’t the way it's supposed to work, so I took it upon myself to handle it. I suspect a few of them realized once they were dealing with one of their own that the BS wasn't gonna fly. BTW, if ya do skip Subway and Quiznoes you actually can get really great authentic Hoagies out here. Try http://www.mortysdeli.com in SF. Hoagies? The Bay Area's got it covered! Pizza? That's another story! And they make Calzone but NO STROMBOLI!!! :-P Happy Thanksgiving! BillyTFried (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My area of specialty is fast foods and fast casual restaurant operations, not catering. The person to speak to would be Chris from the food and drink wikiproject who is a certified chef/trainer. He could provide you with help that is much better that I could with this type of question.
I like most of your changes on the American Hunters and Shooters Association introduction. But I think it's important to indicate that they are not only distinct from NRA but the nature of that difference. Has someone objected to saying they are pro-gun control? I don't really see how it's controversial or subjective. It seems to be the whole point of the group's existence and true by definition. No? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "gun control" is a bit of a US centric buzz word. A more generic term would be restrictions on gun ownership. I also think that there si some subjectivity in applying lables and defining what they really do. I think that we should be careful around this topic. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it's a regional U.S. organization, I think some US centric wording isn't out of line. If a clarfication to give broader context to what gun control means is needed, I'm all for it. My issue was just that one could read the whole introduction and not know why the organization existed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on File:Martinini rifle.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because File:Martinini rifle.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting File:Martinini rifle.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, you may have been looking for guidance on the type of sausage to use in coddle. In general, Irish people only refer to one type of sausage - a pork sausage. It's the same sausage as the one used for Irish breakfasts and is pretty identical to pork sausages in the UK too. In my experience, you should be able to source something called a "breakfast sausage" in SF. There used be an Irish shop on Geary out of down town, (Geary and 22nd Avenue or something like that) and they used to sell Irish sausages (and bacon, etc). There's a bunch of Irish pubs around there too, and they'd be happy to tell you where to get sausages. In general, the best place to look for sausage receipes is here. Have fun! Wish I was there! --HighKing (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is amazing that you know so much about the wife of notable physical chemist and thermodynamicist John Cahn (who I will be meeting with in May on UW Campus in Seattle to discuss my work). You must have quite a background ! -- logger9 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Boeing PW9.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thanks for uploading File:Boeing P12.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
Thanks for uploading File:Orenco D.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
I modified your file and made a PNG version of it with a transparent background. I'm not too familiar with the process so feel free to check things over and make sure all the licenses, permissions, credits, summaries, sources, copyrights, descriptions, backlinks, frontlinks, permits, warrants, patents, and executive summaries are all in order. And if there is anything you can do to show YOU as the creator of the image, then feel free to do that as well. JBarta (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Quotations is being proposed as a guideline
Given your interest in Sailing related articles, you are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Sailing, a project dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Sailing articles.
If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with.
With regards to this edit summary, that the Oregon article is currently unsourced does not give us an excuse to do shoddy work in the Olympia article. The goal is to get the article to FA—unsourced or poorly sourced material has no place in an article of that quality. There's absolutely no reason to create more work for ourselves by adding material without a specific source while we're trying to build the article up. Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with the change you made, though I also don't see it having changed the meaning of the sentence really at all. Either is fine by me. Thanks for catching the past-tense error in the characteristics section; most of the articles I write are on ships that ended up on the bottom of Scapa Flow so I have a habit of past-tense for everything.
Is there any chance you can easily get Cooling's book? I was using Google Books for the material I added this morning, but it cuts off at page 49 for me. I imagine the rest of the content would be immensely useful for the more obscure periods of the ship's career (between the wars and her last years with the USN).
We should have a few more editors dropping by once they get access to some other sources (see the discussion here about Olympia—as an aside, we can always use another naval historian over at WP:OMT). Ideally, we can get the article through FAC by 1 May, so we can run it on the anniversary of the Battle of Manila. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead sections should summaries the information to follow, but each article is different, so the lead for each article inevitably fluctuates to a size consistent with the information to follow. I believe that the lead sections for the entire Iowa class of battleships were more or less written by me, these are usually short, yet the intro I did for HMS Hood (51) is long because much needed to be said of Hood's service in the Royal Navy. The key is to strike the right balance to wet an appetite for more yet keep the juiciest details out so these can be expended upon in the article body. To this end it may be true that my version has more details than Parsecboy's version, but if Parsecboy has done a better job of condensing the information than the purpose of the lead is fulfilled. In the end the excellent presentation of information is all that really matters, and if I had even a small hand in assisting this process then I am happy. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - and that's a very good job from what I can tell at the moment... Definitely not an easy one, there were all sorts of problems with the prose. GregorB (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, I'm just writing to let you know that me and some Wikipedian friends are launching Wikipedia Club at Berkeley, a student club for promoting participation in Wikipedia and face-to-face collaborations. If that sounds fun to you, please consider joining our mailing list. You don't have to be a student to participate, as long as you live in the Bay Area. Thanks! Dcoetzee01:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tagging the article for deletion. While it's not your fault, it has become a vanity piece for the company, and does not meet the notability guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Hey -
Sorry for the late notice, but since you have yourself tagged as living in the Bay Area, I thought you might appreciate notification that we’re having an event Saturday! It’ll be held at Hoyt Hall, an all-women's house of the Berkeley Student Cooperative from 3 to 6 pm tomorrow. The main event page is here.
Anyone is welcome to show up, but we’re expecting a significant number of people to come who have literally never edited Wikipedia before. If you’re an experienced Wikipedian who would be able to provide useful help to some of the newbies, your presence would be especially appreciated (and it might be a good idea for you to show up at 2 or 2:30 instead of three.
Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I’m AWB’ing this message to all Wikipedians who have tagged themselves in the bay area. I’m sorry if the message isn’t of interest to you; feel free to delete it. I’ll be unlikely to send future messages in a similar way, but if really don’t want to receive future messages of this sort, please let me know. [reply]
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Welcome your input on above - I didn't see that the actual draft was referenced anywhere, but maybe it has since be de-linked. Do you think it should be saved for historical purposes? Thanks. Please share your thoughts at the MFD. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
prices will rise, or force need-based-buyers to out bid irrational or ill-informed buyers.<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-07-12/news/8602190919_1_realty-agent-net-listing-sales-
Your upload of File:Boom Brake White Back.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)13:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm looking at the pages tagged by the bot. It seems that you may have re-used content from elsewhere in Wikipedia when you made this page. If so, could I ask you to provide attribution of the source so that I can tick this one off? The {{copied}} template is one handy way of doing that. Many thanks,Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had cleaned up that article and renamed it a few years ago but didn't want to fuss too much with the prior editor's work. But to address your concerns I've rewritten the lede. That being said, it's very possible that the Flikr article could have been lifted from our text. This story is very common knowledge to camera collectors and well documented in several of the cited references. Happy holidays! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Kodak35Camera.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I noticed you are a Notre Dame alumnus, hence I wanted to invite you to join our project.
Hello, Kevin Murray! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Notre Dame, an outreach effort which aims to support development of Notre Dame related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants, check out our To Do list, and join the discussion on our talk page. Thanks!!!
Thank you for uploading File:Cangarda 1901.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Thank you for uploading File:Cangarda 1910.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Thank you for uploading File:Battery davis - SF 16 inch.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Phot Permission Sherman.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
Thanks for uploading File:C22 - 1970 - 2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Thank you for uploading File:C1-A clean in water.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, Kevin Murray. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've moved a portion of the lead of this article into a trivia section. I'm curious to know why exactly that was done, particularly since WP:TRIVIA generally frowns on such sections and with a GA-class rating material in question seemed better paired with its international first based counterpart, which I see is still in the lead. I'm not going to revert the move, but I'd like to get input from you on why you feel that this is trivia instead of relevant information so I can get a better idea where to go from here. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom, I felt that the information is trivial to the history of a battleship, and didn't belong in the lead which should only be a summary of that which will be presented in the body of the article. I agree that plugging it into a trivia section was lazy on my part, but my objective was to clean up the lead. Any ideas? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to bullet point one, I concede the point, however if a discussion had opened on this we'd have been able to figure out what to do with the information. With regards to bullet point two, the answer is actually yes and no. Texas shares the same role as Mississippi in that they both served as test-beds for new and/or experimental weaponry, which is definitely not trivia, however they way in which it was presented could be seen as trivia. If you have no objections, I'd like to play with this some to eliminate the trivia section before someone complains about a GA article and a ship article having a trivia section and using it to justify adding more trivia sections to our ship article(s). TomStar81 (Talk) 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your judgment Tom. It seemed wrong to me in the lead. Go with your best instinct on how to deal with it. I will have no complaint with your choices. Thank you very much for your courtesy in dealing with this issue and sharing your concerns. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at removing the trivia section by rewording some of the material, but I would like your input on the change since you were the one who thought it seemed weird. If it still seems weird I'll see about a complete reworking of the content by putting them into the article directly. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kevin Murray. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Kevin, I notice that you removed the citations needed template from Sailcloth on two occasions, one time noting, "Extensive sources have been cited". Unfortunately, the sources, such as they may be, are not tied to statements in the text with an in-line format. So, it's impossible for a reader to verify any given statement. If you're willing, I'm game to team up with you and try to improve that situation. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, Kevin! I suggest that we open up each non-inline link in the References section, assess whether it qualifies as a reliable source, and then see if we can find a home for it in the text, where additional citations are needed. Thereafter, we can see what statements still need to be supported with references, find appropriate references or delete those statements that are not supportable. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vertigo (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You are invited to join us at IUPUI University Library for a Wiki Loves Pride editathon—hosted by IUPUI University Library, and supported by the Central Indiana Community Foundation—where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:
You are invited to join us at Ruth Lilly Law Library for an edit-a-thon on Food Deserts & Food Policy hosted by Ruth Lilly Law Library and United States National Agricultural Library. Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on food deserts, nutrition, and related local and federal food policy.
Thursday, July 28th from 11am-4pm, in Room 235G, Inlow Hall, 530 West New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202.
Visit the Wikipedia/Meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more.
Upcoming events around Indiana - Nov. 1: Environmental Justice editathons 2 locations: Indianapolis & Bloomington (and virtual option)
IUPUI
You are invited to join us for a multi-site editathon organized by Indiana Wikimedians at IUPUI University Library in downtown Indianapolis and the Herman B Wells Library at IU Bloomington (with virtual option). Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors, with faculty subject matter experts, will collaboratively improve articles on environmental justice in Indiana and globally. Join us at either location or virtually!
Registration is now open for WikiConference North America 2022 (Nov. 11–13) held jointly with Mapping USA! If you would like to experience this virtual event in-person, you are welcome to join our meetup in Indianapolis! We will be meeting at IUPUI University Library for the weekend, with AV set up for conference streaming and presenting (for those who've submitted proposals).
Anyone is welcome to join, we will have some light refreshments and are planning evening activities. Feel free to join us for an activity, a day, or the whole weekend. Please let us know you are coming via the meetup page and please register for the conference. We will share more about in-person activities on the meetup page as they are finalized.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
It's been an eventful state legislative session in Indiana, and local elections took place this week, so we have lots to cover! You are invited to The AMP at 16 Tech in Indianapolis for a Politics & Government editathon to improve write articles about local political and government topics of interest and improve information about local officials, candidates, elections, and legislation. Come join us at this fun venue, with free parking and refreshments provided!
You are invited to join us at Spades Park Branch Library for a Wiki Loves Pride editathon—hosted by the Wikimedians of Indiana User Group with support from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. Together, new and experienced Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on LGBTQ+ topics, individuals, organizations, and legislation in Indiana.
We are partnering with the Indiana State Fair to offer FREE tickets to the fair for Wikipedians! We will be meeting on July 30th at 10am to pass out tickets and have a quick info session before we attend the fair (feel free to branch off and share your accomplishments on the Meetup page later!) Detailed instructions on how the day will go is available on the Meetup page! We hope you'll join us to edit about things related to fair (historic buildings, foods, animals, activities, and the fair itself).
All levels of experience are welcome! Please RSVP so we know who is coming. We hope you'll join us!
You are invited to Herron Art Library in Herron School of Art & Design for an Under-represented Artists of Indiana Edit-a-thon—hosted by the Wikimedians of Indiana User Group with support from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. Together, new and experienced Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on under-represented Indiana based artists and art/artist organizations and groups in Indiana today, and historically.
When: Wednesday October 11, 2023 11:30 am - 2:00 pm Eastern
Where: Herron Art Library in Herron School of Art & Design 735 W. New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202
Parking: Please park in lot 88 - the visitor parking area in the garage across the surface lot from Herron. We will have parking vouchers available.
What to bring: Your preferred editing device and necessary charging cables, and any material you may want to reference. Lunch and refreshments will be provided.
All levels of experience are welcome! Please RSVP so we know who is coming. We hope you'll join us!
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Kevin, I'm reviewing the backlog of files transferred to Commons, and we've reached the middle of 2009 (I know! Crazy!). One thing that is coming up now is that a lot of images at those times didn't list original sources of parts of them. It looks to me like the satellite image came from an old aerial survey, maybe government related, maybe out of copyright, but I can't go by guesswork. I'm hoping you can remember and help me add the information to the file on Commons. Thanks Bastique☎ call me!23:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
BillyTFried (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
-2007-05-15T20:19:00.000Z-Image:Charles_Murray.gif){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T00:39:00.000Z-Image:Discover_Sept_1982.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T10:03:00.000Z-Image:Jensen2.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Greater fool theory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
