This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kingboyk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To be honest, I'm not sure I'd bother. In a rational universe/sensible wiki, it'd be logical to take the next step in the canonical dispute resolution process, so as to, well, resolve the dispute. In this one, it's likely just to provoke further incivility, scent-marking of territory and failure to even pretend to assume good faith, by the very people accusing the BAG of those things. So I don't see much alternative to resigning myself to the apparent status quo, which is that several insiders are effectively in charge of running the technical side in whatever cowboyish fashion they wish, and a partially overlapping group of insiders are in charge of insulting anyone that questions any of the insiders, on this or any other matter. While we continue to have these different lines of communication (or lack thereof) operating at cross purposes (the community, its representatives, the Foundation, distance function from King Jimmy I, etc), it's the sort of thing I expect to continue, I'm afraid. Alai22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, I really appreciate it. I'd pretty much come to the same conclusion. I'd better go inform everybody else I "spammed" about this. Thanks again. (I hope you're wrong on the last point btw, but you're probably not). --kingboyk22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner and don't worry about bothering me- much rather have a sensible message like that the usual moans from people who don't like the way their XfDs have gone :-). I think your totally right to feel pissed off by the comments that have been directed towards BAG and you in particular lately. I can't see what you've done to deserve them and am uncomfortable that a consensus seems to have been reached off-Wiki before the issue was even mentioned here. That being said you are of course right that RfC wouldn't solve much- infinite barnstars for whoever manages to come up with something better than RfC (which is a lot more broken than RfA, RfB or Bot Approvals). WjBscribe23:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mimi
What an avalanche! I will work on it, but there's not much left I can put in, although some of the points were spot on. I always hated that "hated the devil's English" anyway :) I still think there's a good chance andreasegde00:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep the Faith
Kingboy, I've been watching your comments on the arbcom page, and on the BAG page, and I'm upset for you a bit. Keep the faith. I know you feel piled on right now, and I frankly don't blame you - but you do good work, and you're clearly and talented editor and have given much to the project. This too shall pass. Philippe02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Philippe, and WJBscribe, thank you very much for the kind words. I really appreciate it.
Now the dust has settled, I think most "ordinary" editors who commented were at least reasonably happy with the job and I and BAG do. Power to the people! :) Thanks again. --kingboyk18:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the invite
I'll edit as I can but don't think I have the bandwidth to spend as much time on the articles as I'd want to if I were to officially rejoin. Thanks again-- --Lukobe04:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A-class review template
I think the only thing needed is the parameter A-class. The only valid value is current. That should produce a box like the current template, with should give a link to the A-class review department, WP Biography and most important the review page of the article to be reviewed. Currently I've added a category, but I'm not convinced of its added value.
Ooh, yes please Sharon. More sweetness and light is needed around here :) Yep, I just read your email, expect a reply in 7-10 working days :P --kingboyk15:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Although we do have the todo list, shown in the recent newsletter, I think something along the lines of Template:WPMILHIST Announcements (with the work groups, although inspiration could also be stolen from Template:LGBT open tasks) would serve the project/its members far better, being generally more direct and easier to use. Granted, it would require weekly ish updating, but thats not too bad, and if the work-groups get responsibilty for their own sections it would greatly decrease the work load. What do you think? RHBTalk - Edits20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally I prefer the WPBio sidebar of the 3 templates you showed me. The other 2 are bulky and overlong, imho. --kingboyk16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
support for Mimi Smith
I just wanted to let you know personally that I believe you two have done a great job on Mimi Smith, and I believe the article has improved considerably. I now fully support FA-status, and I want to congratulate you on a job well done! Errabee23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That's really nice of you, as we really ought to be thanking you. Of course, the job isn't done yet (is it ever?), we have to garner some more supporters and get the FA star :) I feel this is an important step though, because I know you to be a thorough reviewer. Thanks again for your time. --kingboyk23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Lough Neagh
Sorry, who are you? A consensus was already reached a number of months ago regarding the Lough Neagh article which a small cadre of troublemakers is now seeking to overturn. Please follow the edits and contributions yourself and think about what is being done and said there. Have An Siarach and Feline1 also been threatened with being blocked from editing? Beir in mind that they started this 'edit war' An Muimhneach Machnamhach09:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"A small cadre" is quite an interesting term to use. In reality you have on user, the above poster - who presumably for nationalist reasons refuses to accept that Ireland is a part of the British Isles and promptly removes any reference to the archipelago of which Ireland is a part from the article - and a group of editors who revert his POV motivated edits. "British Isles" is a term with a pedigree stretching back thousands of years which predates by many centuries any of the extant political entities found within those isles. This controversy over its use is a recent invention by Irish nationalists and the edit war on Lough Neagh is one of POV being imposed and then reverted by others. siarach09:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A very peculiar attitude for an admin i would have thought. How can you have the slightest idea if an editor is pushing a legimate (or arguably legitimate) edit if you "really dont want to know"? Consequently, I would have thought, this would render you incapable of judging when, for example, 3RR warnings were called for or not - or are all reversions of vandals, trolls and POV-pushers now fair game as well? If indeed you "don't really want to know" perhaps youd have done better to refer the case to an admin who did "really want to know" and could then, even if they were lacking an existing background of familiarity with the relevant subject, actually judge what action was appropriate. siarach22:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I warned you both. I don't want to take sides because then I won't be impartial and can't block either or both of you if you continue to edit war. Admins don't judge content disputes; editors must resolve these themselves (see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes). I am British (and proud to be so) and don't need any briefing on the issues, let me say that much.
If you can't find consensus on what the article should say, you might want to consider opening an RFC. If that happens I'll gladly let you know my take but for now, as I said, I don't want to hear excuses or justification for edit warring, just stop it. Thank you. --kingboyk22:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter Volume II, no. 2 - April 2007
An A-class review department has been set up. A-class grades are now reserved for articles that pass an A-class review. The department is in need of dedicated reviewers.
The proposal to start a WikiProject Biography Coordination Council has been reopened. Please discuss the proposal, or nominate yourself to be a coordinator, at the talk page.
The Spring 2007 assessment drive was a huge success. A grand total of 44,324 biographies have been assessed in just over a month.
Since the last newsletter, through the efforts of multiple bots and all who participated in the Spring Assessment Drive, the project has expanded greatly and at the time of writing encompasses over 350,000 articles, just over 1/5 of the whole of Wikipedia - something to be proud of? However, almost half of these are marked as stubs, and only with the continued effort of us, the 300 and those not part of the project can all of these articles be improved - though as statistics show, this is already happening...
If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
Note to Admins
Would all members who are also admins, and who have a reasonable understanding of advanced template syntax, please ensure that they have {{WPBiography}} on their watchlist? The template is fully protected now.
Hi Steve, just to let you know (since you deleted it last month), that I've gone and resurrected the revert-only sandbox, just because it's a bit of fun to have around.... — Matt Crypto17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I saw that, thanks. Have too much of a backlog to respond immediately. (One PR, one FAC, one GAC, perhaps too much!) Cheers. --kingboyk19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
AWB (not urgent)
Hi Mets, I hope the studying's going well and best of luck with your exams.
If, however, you find yourself wanting to play dev for an hour or so, this might interest you and could certainly use your help. I tried to improve your nudge timer but I think I messed it up somewhat ;) --kingboyk13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't really do anything with AWB until this is sorted out. And I can't build the latest version, and it doesn't look like I'll be able to do any development at all while we have c++ code in the project because the express editions of Visual Studio .NET can't handle a project with C# and C++ code together. I can edit the C# code in Visual C# Express and the C++ code in Visual C++ Express, but I can't build them together. Any ideas? Maybe we can separate it into two solution files and every time you need to update Wikidiff2 (which should be rare) then we can just have it output to the same directory as AWB. —METS501 (talk)18:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. So you wouldn't have been able to build the project when it had a VB component, either, even if you had downloaded the dev environment...
Also, Max's addition of the C++ project has messed up the solution file even for those of us who have a retail version of VS. All things considered, I think breaking up the solution file would be fine especially if I get proper release and debug builds configurations back!! I'll mention this to Sam and Martin. Cheers. --kingboyk18:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC) PS I watchlist your talk page; let's keep this thread here for now, but in future you can reply where I write to you :P
I'm not completely sure about the use of the Express editions (if I get the time, I'll load the project into a system which wouldn't accept VS :( ), but I suspect that if, within the C# Express, you can drop the C++ project from the solution and build task list, you should get a semi functional AWB. If you then build Wikidiff2 in VC++, can copy the binary (Wikidiff2.dll) to your debug directory, you should be able to use Wikidiff2, but without debug support for that code. Presumably, if you deselect the "Just my code" option (in the debug settings, somewhere), and put Wikidiff.pdb (if it exists) into the debug folder, you'd be able to debug fully (but don't hold me to that promise :)). On the idea of splitting the solution - I don't like the idea too much, but it may be the best way to resolve the various difficulties everyone is having. Thanks, Martinp2319:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have an even better idea: fix the bloody solution file!! :P I'm sure it's within your capabilities, Mr p23 :) --kingboyk19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Martin: I tried doing that, but I encountered build errors building the partial solution becuase it thinks that one of the components of the solution is messed up. —METS501 (talk)20:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. You should be able to compile the C++ under C++ Express and merely link it under C#? Or am I several levels behind? RichFarmbrough, 14:28 27 April2007 (GMT).
What Set Us Off
Kingboyk, sorry for this long post. Some of your recent comments on the Beatles project talk page indicate that you may not know what set a few of us off. You have to read a specific entry on the policy talk page where a few editors decided they were changing the policy:
“
As a smaller number of people who believe this to be the case, myself, Vera Chuck and Dave, Crestville, and one or two others (who have been around Wikpedia long enough to know what we are talking about) have decided that the policy will be changed. We have not voted on this, and realise that many editors will disagree, but we have come to a consensus that we believe is best for Wikipedia and articles that feature The Beatles (as a group, and not as individual members in groups of two or three) and agree that when editors write about 1/2/ or 3 of The Beatles, they should called the Beatles, but collectively, The Beatles, as that was the band's name. This clears the air, and will be noted in the next Beatles' Newsletter. andreasegde 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
”
That entry was the last straw for LessHeard vanU. I tried to fight it for a few days, but when that seemed useless, I left, too. The authors of the new policy did not change the policy page, or add a note to the newsletter. (There has been no newsletter since that time because no one stepped up to replace LessHeard vanU until you and Lar made edits this month.) The lack of an official update wasn't important. The people who left, including me, certainly felt that the policy had been changed but we had no reason to point out that the policy page was unchanged.
So, from my point of view:
"The" changed to "the" in January, after a fair amount of debate, and with a policy page change and note in newsletter. I was not paying particular attention at that time but I was aware of it.
andreasegde was told about the change or noticed it in March.
After andreasegde and others complained, LessHeard vanU said he'd take the lead and re-open the discussion.
While that was going on, but before it gathered any steam, andreasegde with "Vera Chuck and Dave, Crestville, and one or two others" decided they knew best and on 17 March announced a somewhat complicated policy of their own design where "The" was preferred in most cases. Their announcement killed any further useful discussion. There were very few, if any subsequent comments by "the" people. I made a bunch of comments about process, but my dialog with andreasegde slipped into name calling on both sides. (We have since since negotiated a cease-fire.)
The point is, the exodus began on 17 March. andreasegde was at the center of the firestorm, evidently got tired of it, and stopped working on Beatle articles a week or so later. He was not on the participants list so it's hard to tell exactly when he left.
So, people on all sides left, but IMO the incident that ignited the powder keg was the quoted passage above. A small group of editors decided on "The" and their action has been accepted, albeit by the removal of the policy and by the exit of the people who care about process and/or "the". As it stands now, it's not fun to edit Beatle-related pages and so I am mostly doing anti-vandalism, anti-crap edits. If the process/debate had continued, I would have kept rewriting song pages. I wasn't much involved in the debate and didn't really care about the outcome. I was busy rewriting Why Don't We Do It in the Road?, You Know My Name (Look up the Number), I'm Down, Day Tripper, Your Mother Should Know, and others. I had added citations to those articles and dozens of others. (I've got a couple dozen of the most-referenced books and was adding citations as fast as I could.) I was halfway through fixing up Hey Jude in March. Instead of finishing that, and doing more, I'm out. From where I sit, chaos reigns. The icing on the rotten cake is the constant mention of getting articles to FA by people who—IMO—caused this mess. (I am not referring to you and your use of that as a goal during recent attempts to get things positive again.)
I am fine with no policy or guideline on the/The. Your decision about that was probably for the best. It seems inconsistent for me to agree with your unilateral action when I so strongly opposed the announcement on 17 March, but your intent was completely different. Overall, though, I am in favor of more guidelines, not less. I think there should be more consistency in articles. I think some specific actions should be taken to modify articles but those actions need to be discussed and approved by project members. As it stands now, starting a process to discuss project guidelines would be like sticking a knife in my own eye and I am not going to do it. John Cardinal18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that, and Andrew probably isn't best qualified to be deciding what makes for consensus and what doesn't. Personally, I can't find consensus either way.
I haven't read your message in it's entirety yet (but will do). I will point out, though, that in the absence of a WikiProject policy or guideline on this issue, the standard Wikipedia Manual of Style takes over. I haven't read the relevant section for a while (again, I will do), but I think it may well say "the Beatles". Either way, we can have consistency by implementing what the general WP:MOS says without having our own policy on it.
Thanks for writing; it's a long message and I have a backlog of tasks (plus I'm getting a bit wikied-out), but I'll try and read it all and respond more fully later. Cheers. --kingboyk18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I have spent the previous evening and todays lunchtime (I have a job so I edit in my free time) learning how to a)create my own sandbox, b)create diffs, and (tonight) make my "history of the debate" into a nice little package and stick it on the Project talkpage... and find that John Cardinal beats me to it! I would comment that I diffed exactly the same announcement by Andreasegde as the point when things went tits up.
Unlike John, I do not think that your bold decision to remove policy was that good. I know it was done with the best intentions but, as McTavidge pointed out, it simply means that the remaining editors will revert to using Cap T and will drive out the use of little t's on the articles to which they devote their (impressive) energies. In other words, policy has been effectively reverted. The reason why I have not reverted your blanking the Policy page is because I am not a Project member, so I don't think I have the right.
Oh well, at least I have learned a new skill in which to drive the folk who inhabit the village pump and other policy inclined pages a little more exasperated with me... all the best! LessHeard vanU21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on the MFD, both of you. Really, I mean it. I know that you know it was done with the best intentions, and I hope you know that I know that you know it was done with the best intentions (hehehe). What I don't know is what alternative action you think I should take (other than, perhaps, removing my name from the membership list and saying "you fellas sort it out", which isn't that bad an idea actually :) The only Beatles-related articles I religiously watch are Apple Corps and Records, anyway.)
BTW, it hadn't escaped my notice (despite having not fully followed all John's links yet) that your postings were pretty similar. Yikes! Sorry about that mate! (/me didn't know your name, very bad)... Mark! As you say, at least you learnt something :) --kingboyk21:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have commented at the MDF. I think the DIY folk are most perplexed!! I also commented on the talkpage (heheheheh). BTW, my edit summary there was a little lie! Nice to have fun again... LessHeard vanU21:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes your edit summary was a lie, and it's still showing on my watchlist! You rascal! :P Nice doing business with you, regardless :) --kingboyk22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
They don't know how to form an RFA, they have little to no community involvement, they don't use edit summaries, and they've been blocked twice in the last fortnight. What do you consider a big deal?! ;) --kingboyk19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit of yours. You're correct to remove mention of WPBio, as in my not so humble opinion it's a pretty good project.
What I'm wondering, though, is if you have the process the wrong way round? Would it not be better to encourage rather than disallow tagging by the top-level (Tier 0) projects, with the lower level more specialist projects attaching themselves to these banners by way of parameters? i.e. as MILHIST and WPBiography do right now.
I'm also a little concerned by the suggestion that procedures and limitations will be imposed on WikiProjects that already function well (with a caveat: a few large projects work really well, so do a few small ones; most don't work at all). --kingboyk21:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are obviously different opinions possible on this point. It's my contention, however, that the presumptive "Tier 0" projects simply don't work; see, for example, any of the obvious ones:
(I should point out that WPBIO is not, per se, a top-level project; it's technically subsidiary to History. See the equivalent portal and category structure, for example.)
Realistically, I think it's the next level down where we start seeing actually functional projects; trying to work with this level isn't worth the trouble. Kirill Lokshin21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Dammit, I hate it that you're always right! :P *
So, you're saying that WPBio is tier 1? And it's tier 1 projects that will do most of the tagging and have most of the infrastructure?
Yes, I view WPBio as a Tier 1 project. As for WPBEATLES: I would think it would be a Tier 2 under whatever Tier 1 project wound up being responsible for bands and such; frankly, I think that whole area needs to see some merging regardless (why are songs and albums covered by completely separate projects?). I haven't seen any particular desire on the part of WPBEATLES to set up elaborate infrastructure, either, although I could very well be mistaken on that part.
(As a practical matter, though, I'm not very interested on forcing this proposal on projects that don't want it; I think there are enough low-hanging fruit to be picked here that pushing the issue isn't warranted.) Kirill Lokshin21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why albums are songs and musicians are covered by seperate projects, Kirill. That decision is well before my time, but it's baffled me on occasion too. Needless to say, pretty much the same people are involved with all 3 projects.
WP:BEATLES had a fairly elaborate infrastructure compared to the typical project when it started (one of those pages is actually on MFD right now), but we haven't kept up with many of the new developments. That's mainly because of lack of interest. Indeed, it's hard to say the project has achieved much at all.
Thanks for the discussion Kirill, I feel a bit happier about it now. As I'm sure you know, I'm convinced of the need for change, I just want to be sure we don't become dictatorial or get things the wrong way round :) --kingboyk21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) PS I don't know if you are aware or not, but the Bot Approvals Group got nominated for deletion. I don't know if that matters to ArbCom with the Betacommand case still in progress - I think probably not, but felt it should be mentioned!
Yep, I suspected the membership was largely identical. If we look at it from the WikiProjects-as-editor-groups perspective, it's essentially a single project that's split over several unconnected pages, rather than three really distinct projects; so some sort of merging would probably improve matters.
On the other issue: no, I had not seen that nomination. It may matter to the case, but only if BAG is disposed of—in one way or another—before the case closes; that would leave us with a bunch of principles that didn't correspond to reality in a very obvious way. (Personally, I'm not a big fan of this recent trend of putting editor groups on MFD; but that's a tangential point.)
(I do, in fact, keep track of discussions I'm commenting in, incidentally; so there's no need to leave me notes, at least in the short term. ;-) Kirill Lokshin21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, all noted and just about wrapped up, I think. Thanks! It doesn't look like the BAG page will be "deleted", but now you know about it that's your problem not mine! ;) Cheers mate. --kingboyk21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting discusssion. I have several times toddled off to the History WikiProject and found it completely dead. Similar for lots of high-level WikiProjects (your Tier 0). You do indeed have to do down a bit before finding useful activity. Related is how to harness and redirect WikiProject energies. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster Management was set up with the intention of covering a small topic, disaster management, response and preparedness, but I have long wanted to try and get something going on the history of disasters, and have felt that the name of that WikiProject is misleading and unhelpful. Changing it would require a lot of effort though, so maybe starting from scratch is best in cases like this? Carcharoth12:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
On Friday 30th March, a deranged fan was held after attempting to force his way into Paul McCartney's mansion. See here for more details.
Apple Corps continues to make news, after the recent settlement with Apple Computer over the use of the Apple trademark. On April 10th, the company announced that long-time chief executive Neil Aspinall had stepped down and had been replaced by American Jeff Jones. It was also announced that another long term dispute, this time with EMI over royalties, had been amicably settled prior to Aspinall's departure.[1][2]
Project News
The article "Jeff Jones (music industry executive)" suddenly becomes of top importance in the Apple sphere of Beatledom. User:Kingboyk has created a stub on the man, but the article needs urgent beefing up (including basic biographical data such as date and place of birth) and, if possible, a photograph of the new Apple chief executive.
With the debate over "the Beatles" vs "The Beatles" continuing to cause ill feeling and a number of resignations from the project from advocates on both sides, Kingboyk attempted to diffuse the situation by blanking the Project Policy page and tagging it as {{historical}}. Although this unilateral action hasn't been reverted as of the time of writing, the reaction was mixed, with two members rejoining the project and others stating their disagreement. With the issue still not resolved, the page was sent to Miscellany for Deletion, for the wider community (and WikiProject The Beatles members) to consider the issue.
Member News
The membership list has been trimmed, with inactive members listed seperately to help gauge the status of the project. If you've been incorrectly listed as inactive, please don't be offended - just move yourself back to the main list.
This has been a tumultuous month for the project yet again.
We need your input on how the project should work and what it's role should be. And we need to start getting Featured Articles, folks! :)
Next issue
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 013 – May 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
I found this. I have accordingly changed my vote at the MfD, and commented on the talkpage. Damn, I thought there was a chance of a resolution.LessHeard vanU09:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't do take the action for popularity points (!), I didn't take it to let it one "side" "win", and I didn't do it as an admin, so pretty much the wrong end of the stick there all round :)
We have processes like MfD for a reason, of course, so let's just wait and see what the outcome is. I shall, of course, abide by the result either way. Cheers, and sorry you feel that momentum was lost (although why I am apologising is moot cos I haven't done anything wrong! :P) --kingboyk11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear; It is my belief and understanding that your recent actions in this matter were not intended to be interpreted in the manner as indicated by this (link). I certainly was not blaming you. I apologise to you for any misunderstanding of my first comment.
My hopes for an equitable resolution of the matter have been severely dented by my finding of this. I thought I had saw a way that I may have been able to rejoin the project, but this raises doubts. LessHeard vanU19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. One has to be so careful with words, and I need to be a a lot more careful. I meant that Andrew had got the wrong end of the stick there. I know you're assuming good faith in my actions, thank you. As for the rest, all noted and understood. Cheers! :) --kingboyk19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I demand acknowledgement that I was more wrong than you!!! :P --kingboyk19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC) PS Want a dancing peanut butter jelly bean or whatever it is? (see bottom of page)
Although I daresay I am committing a grave error by giving you this - apparently its official purpose is for people who contribute to lots of Internet articles. I'll probably get rapped over the head for this :p – Rianaऋ14:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I promise not to tell anybody, ok? :) --kingboyk 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC
Any luck? User:SmackBot is virtualy out of commision until we figure a way round this or I fix my other PC (which is currently getting worse, not better). Regards, RichFarmbrough, 14:31 27 April2007 (GMT).
Not yet. Been too busy. My bot is also out of action for the same reason so I will look into it at some point. In the meantime, perhaps you could try and older version? You can go back to a really old version if you like, you'd just need to re-enable it on the checkpage. --kingboyk14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've cheated... I'm using my wife's computer. So that's a workaround, and it seems much faster than mine. RichFarmbrough, 15:19 27 April2007 (GMT).
Hmm... it might be we're the folks suffering because we're on older computers? (My desktop machine broke down and I'm currently on a relatively underpowered laptop). Anyrode, I'll try and find time to have AWB running in the debugger over the weekend to see if I can source that error. Cheers. --kingboyk15:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Question about <div/span class="usermessage"
Because the fake "you have new messages"-like style have been appearing in userpages, it has drawn in some controversy. This is obviously caused by the div/span class="usermessage" attribute. My question is, should brion and others get rid of that class so that it won't cause any controversy? V60干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 320:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Style-wise that looks fine to me mate. It's my brain seeing orange and telling me I have new messages I object to. Thanks. --kingboyk20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help but ask... ;-) . As I see you're in Gloucestershire, please go drink some nice lukewarm bitter for me - we can't get it here....Skookum119:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I should have pointed it out in the message above, but it isn't a "dancing peanut butter jellybean time" thingy but a dancing (space) peanut butter (a type of sandwich filling) jelly (American style for the fruit preservative we call "jam", also a sandwich filling) time (the human determination of an abstract, namely the marking the perceived lapsing of a certain quantity of infinity - infinity being unquantifiable by definition making this a particularly obtuse concept). I hope this helps! ;~) LessHeard vanU20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That was a gently amusing comment you posted regarding the Universal Life Church, although I was slightly baffled why it appeared on my talkpage. I have placed a {{subst:uw-spam2|Article}} warning on GreenJoe's talkpage (the very first warning I have ever placed anywhere) along with a "lets be nice about it" message. If you want to move your comment over there to you may wish to see what I've written and alter your message accordingly. You may also give him a dancing peanut butter jelly thingy, just to confuse the poor soul... LessHeard vanU22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC) ps. Good beer?
I posted on your talk page because that's where I saw it! I was just dropping by to check your reaction to the peanut butter jelly thingy :) Feel free to give him one, spread the love! --kingboyk22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I get uppety on the encyclopedia's behalf. See somebody who insists on adding crap to articles, act. Call it a fault but it's how I am! :P --kingboyk23:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It is now off the main articles and into the Miscellanea article. GreenJoe and I mutually removed our warnings from each others pages after a bit of a chat. LessHeard vanU23:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)ps. You could always invite him onto your Beatles project... no, stoppit... me ribs are aching...
Mornin'! Yeah, dem Fab Four is somewhat well known - but not so the ULC. I'm sure that the lads collectively and singly have been invested in and made members of very many societies and organisations, with or without their knowledge, and now we have a precedent of where such tidbits can go. LessHeard vanU11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey hey!
Don't dare to go to bed without saying g'night to me first, mister ;) I'll hook up on MSN in a few mins - watch out! Mwah, Phaedriel - 22:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Stevie, if you happen to be around, I'm having trouble adding you to my contacts list at MSN, dunno why tho :( I'll try later - hop on to Gmail if you wanna say hi, otherwise we'll see each other later... tho I wanted to thank you for the dancing banana in person... (sob)... Phaedriel - 22:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Noticed you gave the PBJT award to many deserving folk - but not only that, I saw one person pass it on to another person! A few more, and I believe we can officially say that the trend has caught on. In recognition of your efforts, I present you with another obnoxious Internet meme - less eye-catching but still funny :) Take care, and keep spreading the word! – Rianaऋ02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kingboyk; I undid the redirect for this article given that Ms Rubin is notable not only for Autism Is A World. Autism advocacy is one of my major interests, so if there are any more articles in this category whose notability you're wondering about, please feel free to let me know and I might be able to help with referencing them. best regards, Jim Butler(talk)03:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Steve. Could you cast your eye over this and see if you can make sense of it? The {{WPBelfast}} template was changed recently, but I don't know if this problem had existed before that. Cheers. --Mal11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Kingboyk, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,
· AndonicOTalk
Dead end
I was following a red-link that looked interesting, and came up against this dead-end. If an essay exists on this, would you mind pointing it out to me? Thanks. Carcharoth12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you want to "close" the last Newsletter and format the next one, as Andreasegde added to the one just sent out... BTW, I've created the page so I could comment in the discussion so you need only drop the Subst wotsit thing over my drivel and then Project folk can add to it. LessHeard vanU21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Lar did it when he was postie, I never got the hang of it. Anyway, it is a Project matter... yer sneeeeky mayn, you! ;~) LessHeard vanU12:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Steve! I just popped in to do some dusting and got your message, very nice surprise! I would indeed being interested in rejoining the project on my permanent return, but the pressure of work at the moment is massive, so at this moment in time, I can't really say when that will be. I hope that you are well, take care. Jimmy
Having a) read your conversation with user:Xljesus re moving articles, and b) buggered up a move recently myself, I'm just asking if you could move Norman Giscombe to Junior Giscombe. Norman's his real name (poor sod) but he still works as Junior Giscombe - which gets many more google hits. Cheers. Totnesmartin23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I left what I thought was helpful advice at the above page, and it was certainly in good faith. The user reverted my message. He's also achieved a level of notability at the AWB page due to his attitude. Are you sure you have an admin candidate here and aren't wasting your time? --kingboyk19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kingboyk,
I'm sorry your friendly, well-meant message was reverted, with a dismissive edit summary. I certainly don't approve of that, and have, in fact, restored comments that were removed with dismissive edit summaries. As you restored your own comment, however, it's not necessary for me to restore it. I well know your message was in good faith, and have asked OhanaUnited not to do that. He's still new, and unfamiliar with some polcies and guidelines, like we all once were.
As far as AWB goes, I'm aware that it is a powerful tool that must not be abused, and that's why the AWB project developers may be cautious when approving people. I have tried, in several messages, to convey this idea to Ohana. Your comment here troubles me, as I had already asked Ohana earlier to remain civil and assume good faith, with a full explanation of why accusing Alphachimp of "playing dirty" wasn't fair or appropriate. I'm not sure why I should be "pulling him up over" the incident (because I'm not sure what it means), but if it means abandoning this mentorship, I'd say that's a bad idea; it's clear Ohana wants to improve (or he wouldn't have asked for the mentorship), and it's clear he needs mentorship. This incident just highlights that. If it means cautioning him not to do that, I had already done that before you posted your message on the AWB talk page.
I don't believe mentoring editors who have asked for assistance is ever a waste of time, and I'm confident Ohana is learning and growing every day as an editor. A time will come when he's ready to pursue an adminship, but I'm sure we can all agree that time is not now. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester00:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. If he doesn't want my advice, that's fine, I was just a bit taken aback by the attitude. As for "pulling him up" I meant the kind of guidance I provided, i.e. AlphaChimp should be thanked for his time, not complained at. I'll leave it in your no doubt capable hands, cheers. --kingboyk16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you please try to help with something?
Hi Kingboyk. Kanem-Bornu Empire was converted from an article into a disambiguation page, so I decided to change the class of {{AfricaProject}}, which was on the talk page, to disambig class. However, I realized I needed to add this functionality to the template first, which I tried to do.
So, the talk page is listed in the as-of-yet nonexistent Category:Disambig-class Africa article. However, clicking the orange Disambig class icon on the talk page leads to Category:Dab-Class Africa articles. Being a frequent editor to an even more complicated template, {{WPBiography}}, I figure you might know how to eliminate the extra category. (I don't care which one, as long as clicking the orange box leads to the same category the article is in.) Could you please give it a try? Picaroon(Talk)01:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What's happening there is that the template trancludes another template named xxx-Class, where xxx is taken from the class=xxx argument. To demonstrate this, try {{AfricaProject|class=fred}}, and you'll see that it will try to transclude a template called Template:Fred-Class. Your parameter argument is dab, so it's transcluding {{dab-Class}}, which outputs a dab-class category. 2 ways to possibly fix this:
It's had its review. I would suggest looking at it for the measly two things that need fixing before it passes. Some people have all the luck :) andreasegde15:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
All right, if it's trivial I will do, thanks. The article is Vinoir's work, I'd hoped it would give him a "welcome back" boost but he seems to have drifted away again :( --kingboyk16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
my RfA - thank you
Thank you for your kind support in my RfA, and of course (albeit somewhat late) your help and advice in setting up the A-class review department. Allow me to present you with this:
Hey Kingboyk. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. I see your reason to oppose because of Blnguyen, but I think Kelly's accusation of social networking was wrong and uncalled for. --TeckWiz is now RParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi KingboyK! This article was my first article and was it a wreck in the beginning. In fact, many moons ago you tagged it for "encyclopedic tone" citing to not make it sound like a "eulogy". :) Yes, it upset me, only because I was beside myself because writing is not my forte. Buy it only wanted me to make it better and so I started over. I have since taken it through the GA process last year, and now at FAC. I've seen much of your work and know you are a respected member of this community and Musician's workgroup, and especially with all the FAs you've contributed as well. Anyway, this article has been in FAC for a month and the only object popped up last night from Tony for prose/copyedit, whom I also definately respect in this regard. A request is in to the League of Copyeditors but I just thought I'd ask if you had any bit of time at all, if you could have a look for prose. If not, no biggie. Just thought it couldn't hurt to ask an obvious "expert". :) Cricket0216:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm sorry I didn't reply before; I've been quite busy and, in fact, still have a considerable backlog. However, I think you've waited long enough so I've got the page open in my browser now and will take a look after dinner. FYI, Tony is the expert when it comes to copyediting and prose, not me! :) --kingboyk18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm well aware of how good Tony is with prose and writing skills, which is why I wanted to ask someone whom I equally respect, such as yourself, to have a look/copyedit and see what needs doing, which you have, and I greatly appreciate that. Thanks so much again. Cricket0204:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No, thanks, I was just a bit premature in offering support and thought I ought to check out your contribs a little more deeply (which I haven't done yet, alas). --kingboyk18:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Demn You, Sir, for a Varlet!"
Steve, you really are quite sneaky y'know!? I've been thinking about the Admin thing (yeah, I know I mentioned it first!) since it came up in conversation a week or so ago...
What would you say I needed to do (on a first impressions basis) in my contributions to WP to provide me with the skills for Adminship. Would I need to alter my style? What do I do that Admin tools would help me with? How would WP be better (or at least no worse) if I was an Admin?
I've been looking through the current RfA's and am unsure if I & it suits each other. If I could settle my mind on this then I could get on with my Wikilife for the time being. Any comment would be welcome. LessHeard vanU21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had a very quick look at your contribs, and you seem to be on the right tracks. You use edit summaries, you know your way round the policies, you're not too controversial nor a soft touch. I thought you could have handled the Beatles policy thing a touch better, but I wouldn't hold that against you. Just about the only negative I can see is that haven't contributed much to xFDs and indeed in project space in general outside the Village Pump and the WikiProject.
You could try your luck now (we have an admin-tasks backlog, after all), but you'd probably (by no means certainly) not succeed. It wouldn't be a terribly premature nomination; if you're a gambling man, why not. Alternatively, the safer option, further your involvement in deletion debates and other issues and try in a month or 2. --kingboyk18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. In short, style isn't a problem (that is my real concern, since I conform to evolution and not revolution theory) and a bit more experience in some of the administration functions would be helpful.
I believe that testing the water, now, by applying for Admin would be a reasonable course. If I get it I can still chore around to get a feel of how things are done before exercising any extra functions, and if I don't then I will have opinions to the Nth magnitude of where to direct my energies. I don't see the point in the safer option, I could still not be approved weeks hence when I could have been either getting the required specific experience or carrying on as before. I will likely apply at the end of the week, to allow myself the weekend to answer the questions. LessHeard vanU21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Great. I'm not going to offer to nominate because I only do that very sparingly (twice so far), but I will certainly support. Good luck! --kingboyk21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Once I decided to broach the subject here then self nom was only ever going to be the option. Cheers anyhow, and don't hold back on comment (yeah, as if). LessHeard vanU22:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Kingboyk, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGiДnts!☺☻22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to his insistence on recreating the The London Exchange article numerous times, and his vandalism and personal attacks on both his user and talk pages, he has now vandalized my user page. I have to ask that he be blocked for at least a short period. I see no chance of him stopping otherwise. Thanks. ---Charles01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, sir, for your quick action on this matter. You know, honestly, I was willing to work with this fellow, as was Withewock, but I do not tolerate being called a dickwad by anybody. Thanks again. ---Charles01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a copyright violation in any particular "Media in Africa" article
Warning You are being missed too much to let you go on with your editing without being urged to reply to the author of this message. Since she has repeatedly tried to add you to her MSN contact list to no avail, it is imperative that you work your butt to find an alternative way in order to talk to her once and for all. Please do not erase warnings on this page. Removing this notice might lead to an endless series of whiny rants and yet more pestering from its author. Have a nice day, Phaedriel - 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry folks. I have a backlog of tasks to complete, as well as a backlog of messages to answer. I'm attempting to answer urgent messages immediately, but give my tasks priority over non-urgent messages. I will endeavor to answer all requests, however. --kingboyk16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot
Can you point me in the direction of a good "Fair use rationale" for a screenshot? Thank you, darling.. :)) andreasegde19:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of your work on micronation-related articles is justified, although I lean heavily toward rewriting rather than deleting things. But your speedy deletion of Talossan language baffles me. The article had survived multiple AFDs, so surely you knew speedy deletion would be controversial. The article contained reliable sources, asserted notability, and was linked to by multiple conlang-related articles which take it seriously as a notable constructed language, so it appears to me to be plainly unfair to characterize the article as "patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content." Please reconsider? PubliusFL14:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough I was thinking about that just now, when outside. I got a bit carried away there. I'll restore it and consider sending it to an AfD. Thanks for putting me straight. --kingboyk14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't complain about an AfD. I was thinking myself that a merge (of reduced content) and redirect might be appropriate. Thanks! PubliusFL14:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like to work on that it would be great. If there's a good case for a merge it can be an editorial decision, it doesn't need an AfD. I'd like to avoid another AfD for obvious reasons, plus I have a messages backlog to clear, the new guidelines to work on, and a category to finish trawling through :) --kingboyk14:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kingboyk, I was hoping you could take a look at this article. It's a relatively unnotable song which has all the info I could find on the subject just about, and now I wish to get it to FAC soon. Is it FA material? If not, what needs to be addressed? Thanks for your time :) LuciferMorgan00:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Heya. Could you revert your recent edit to {{Unreferenced}}. As the discussions on the talk page make clear, this template is to be used where there are no references. There are templates such as {{more sources}} or {{Refimprove}} for articles that don't cite sufficient sources. GDallimore (Talk) 16:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. That's excessive bureacracy, surely? I want a template I can use if the article has no sources or one or two crap ones, and I changed that template per WP:BOLD to do just that. Otherwise I have to try and remember multiple template names, and I can't do that. --kingboyk16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm only reporting on the consensus I see on the talk page. I joined that party late and found that the template has been through many MANY versions... The latest seems the most distinct from the myriad other similar templates. Looks like someone's changed it again, though. GDallimore (Talk) 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
BOLD trumps consensus :) The template wording was stopping me from doing my work, and I actually had somebody remove the template because "ah", they said, "the article has a reference". Yes, it did, but only one and it wasn't adequate! --kingboyk16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're still watching this page: {{sources}}, which I use, is a redirect. Perhaps I could just change the redirect to point to another template? That said, I think that requiring it only to be used on pages with zero references is pointless instruction creep :) --kingboyk17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on pretty much every point - although BOLD in the face of CONSENSUS is quite often reverted :). At least it has started a discussion again and maybe some good will come of it. This time I can take my seat at the party! GDallimore (Talk) 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's red linked. Is it notable? To be honest, the whole article could do with being decrufted and fully referenced (why don't you try and get it to FA?) but I don't have time... if I inadvertedly threw the baby out rather than the bathwater please put it back! --kingboyk17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be a marginal territorial micronation (akin to Hutt River, but more poorly documented). I'm not exactly sure if I can find enough info to expand it out to an article, but there is the one reference. I'm thinking that perhaps I should just stick it in List of micronations. I primarily wanted to know if you saw an evident problem with it, or if you are just afraid it's marginal. Marginal things, which we have some reference for, by preference have been pushed towards the List article. Georgewilliamherbert17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. It seemed very dubious: redlink place, redlink person, claim that it's "officially" tolerated which probably meant "the authorities haven't acted" etc etc. No big deal either way :) Now, what about that FA? There's plenty of material out there and I'd like to be proved wrong that the micronations articles are 90% cruft! --kingboyk17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for things moving to FA. I don't push it myself; there's both politics I don't play in involved, and I frankly haven't got the time (see SN 2006gy and Pair-instability supernova for what I've been focused on this week in WP, plus I have to teach a seminar tonight). I appreciate your point, though. I would support a long term effort to do it; I just can't drive it at any reasonable schedule. Georgewilliamherbert17:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll have a look at those two but I suspect from what Popups has shown me I won't understand them :) --kingboyk17:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for letting me know. It's obviously not going to be "an uncontroversial move" because it's reverting a very recent move. I've rolled back the request so it can go through the proper channels. (Basic summary, should you be interested: KISS is a US station callsign, a US network, a very famous UK radio station, and radio stations in various other parts of the world. Seemed to me best to have a disambiguation page, and I took care of all the incoming links). --kingboyk21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Principality of Seborga
Hi, I have reverted your conversion of the article to a redirect; similarly with Giorgio I, Prince of Seborga. It is quite normal for a Micronation to have its own article. I understand doubts that you may have about these articles but I would suggest that an AfD is the way forward rather than a unilateral action. Best wishes. BlueValour23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the message. AfD generally considers articles for deletion, although it can decide on a redirect. Editors can decide to redirect by themselves. I'm curious as to your objection: is this because it deserves a seperate article, or do you honestly and genuinely think it's better for the reader this way?
I'll send it to AfD if need be but I'd prefer to resolve it without formal process if possible. --kingboyk23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have two reasons for wanting to keep the articles. Firstly, to keep what is a delightful fiction separate from the article on the real place. Secondly, though the articles need better sourcing, I have Googled and there are sufficient sources to meet WP:N (I'm going to bed now but will tackle this over the weekend} so I have little doubt that it meets WP standards of notability. BlueValour23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had too many micronation articles watchlisted until now. Now I have all of them watchlisted, plus quite a number on tangentially related topics - so as long as you keep making changes unsupported by reference sources or consensus, expect to have your edits rolled back. --Gene_poole00:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright mate, could you help me out please? I'm in a bit of a debate with a fellow on the Michael Jackson page regarding the incident at the 1996 Brit Awards. Basically, he thinks the section is some sort of anti-Jackson rant wereas I think he's trying too hard to protect Jackson from.... something or other.
So anyway, I thought it would be beneficial to get a neutral admin to step in (I take in you have no strong opinions on Jacko or Jarvo) and give us a bit of advice.
Here's the section, could you have a read and tell me if you think its balanced, and if not, what needs changing:
At the 1996 BRIT Awards, Jackson performed the track "Earth Song," dressed in white and surrounded by children and an actor portraying a rabbi. During the perfomance it appeared that Jackson was making Christ-like poses while being lifted into the air by a crane. Pulp lead singer Jarvis Cocker and his friend Peter Mansell mounted a stage invasion in protest. Cocker leapt onstage, pretended to expose his rear and danced around. In the ensuing scuffle to remove Cocker from the stage, it was claimed that up to three children received minor injuries.[1]Marc Marot of Island Records, who was present at the event observed "Jarvis [did] a little swerve, and the bouncer's arm [went] up and accidentally [thumped] a child in the face."[2] In response to the ensuing media scrutiny of the action, Cocker responded, "My actions were a form of protest at the way Michael Jackson sees himself as some kind of Christ-like figure with the power of healing... I just ran on the stage and showed off... All I was trying to do was make a point and do something that lots of other people would have loved to have done if only they'd dared."[3] A spokesperson for Jackson and Sony said that "Michael feels sickened, saddened, shocked, upset, cheated, angry, but is immensely proud that the cast remained professional and the show went on despite the disgusting and cowardly behavior of the two characters that tried to disrupt it."[4] Cocker's actions were met with mixed reactions from the British press. The music magazine Melody Maker suggested Cocker should be knighted for his actions,[5] and other media outlets, like The Sun, claimed many found Jackson's performance "distasteful and blasphemous."[6] However, the British Phonographic Industry, who ran the awards, stated that "We are extremely concerned that Jarvis Cocker's actions last night resulted in injury to three children who were performing with Michael Jackson."[7] Cocker refused to accept any blame and made no apology, instead "demanding a retraction of part of the statement and an apology" from Jackson.[8] Cocker received no apology and was not charged.[9]
If you need to look at our respective arguments, they're on my talk page, and his which you can get to from mine.
Thank you for the barnstar! I'm sorry if I offended in the Ladonia/Nimis AfD. I'll try to be more tactful. I'm sure we have differences of opinion about some of the finer points of WP:N, but I know you're not dumb. ;) PubliusFL21:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your recent contributions to an article relating to graffiti or graffiti culture! You may be interested in WikiProject Graffiti, a group working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics relating to graffiti. We would greatly value you joining our WikiProject, or adding some input at our talk page.
hi i did write abut new utopia sugsetion in wikipedia but it get delte why ? i sayd that maybe its good to keep it becuse maybe some citizens of NU live somwher they dont read sec or fbi's PRESS REALLES if they did get looked into as some rumers say... pepol that got citizens 4-7 years ago that maybe have quit ther postbox some years ago wher they got ther adress or moved to a other country , or jusdt forgot the whol project after it got delayed 3 times... and what abut ther database/adressbook/passport info the govonoers have acess to (just look at the passport papers you have to write if you sign uup... i mean it can be used as big ID FRAUD if some govonouers jump the ship and take the information.. or use the informatioian and (bussnis ideas/tax haven information and gated conmuinty ideas (new utopia website did write abut leasing slef sustain gated comunity projects) the australian/uk website wrtie could be a option) use it to lease land/buy island build gated comunity/free port in a central asia /south america , becuse he have alredy citizens and ideas just like the countrys that did want to give passports the hong kong citizens in late 1990s... or did the project get sued in some other country like behamas, caymen ,austrila or eu ? sorry writing i dont live in a enghlis speaking country as you can look --61.7.165.13509:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not assuming good faith beforehand and for being too emotional; but even if it's not true, it certainly does appear, at least to someone who entered this debate yesterday, that you are a little too emotionally involved in the whole micronations thing. I don't mind you cleaning things up but I think you seem to have gotten rid of most of the dodgy micronation articles in the last couple of weeks; the ones that are left all seem to be variously legitimate, although they do need a lot of cleanup. I'd like to work constructively on this and not assume bad faith, but this debate is getting a little too emotional for my liking. JRG13:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the message. It needn't be emotional, unfortunately tempers boil over and people say things they wouldn't ordinarily say. That's wiki. The best response to me is to provide sources and demonstrate notability; I'd rather that than deletion, honestly, and have already withdrawn one nom where that happened, changed my recommendation to merge in another, and helped create a much better article than was there before in a third. I've given a barnstar to one "opponent" for working on references. It's really not all that bad :) I am a warrior in a way: I hate cruft and I hate articles which make grandiose claims without proper sourcing, much of it self-supporting through a series of articles, original research, and not neutral per the independent sources.
That said, I do have other things I could be doing and I don't want to be disruptive; you'll probably be pleased to hear that I've already asked for admin advice this morning about whether to let the dust settle or to carry on and get the job finished. I'm waiting for responses as we speak.
If you have any direct concerns, please bring them here. Check my page and you'll see I'm a reasonable sort of guy. I respond very badly to accusations of bad faith though! Cheers. --kingboyk14:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)
I've done a Factiva search and got twelve articles, all around the time of the court cases (there were two - one which was against Neuman for obtaining money by deception and one which was a defamation case, in which Baron Neuman appeared as a witness for one of his "subjects". I've also found a parliamentary petition in which Neuman and others made petitions on behalf of the state of Aeterna Lucina to the Australian Government to sell off their surplus sheep as live exports to developing countries that had recently emerged from communism! There is a bit of material on this after all - I'll try and fix up the article in the next few days. JRG13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You see, I'm still seeing local news story about a court case with a twist that a slightly eccentric guy decided he'd get round the government by declaring independence. Unlike Hutt River his attempts didn't get much attention, otherwise we wouldn't have to be scraping around for sources like this :) But, you may yet convince me so please do work on it and let's see. Final note: Whether or not I am convinced doesn't really matter; we need to get community consensus. It closed as no consensus last time (which isn't "keep", it means "folks couldn't agree so we default to keep"). It would be nice if we could get agreement one way or the other this time. Thanks again for writing, and for writing in a friendly tone, I really do appreciate it. Cheers. --kingboyk14:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Help, please: Beatle (and other) song sample deletions
User:Gurch uploaded several song samples that have been around for awhile but he is now getting messages from bots that the samples should be deleted. I don't think the samples should be deleted. They are short, relatively low-quality samples as per recommendations and are linked on the article pages for the associated songs. Gurch is evidently tired of fighting the bots (deleting messages on his talk page, for example) and is giving up. He tagged some of the samples for speedy deletion and then set about deleting the links to them. I think the links should stay; they don't violate copyright and they improve the articles for the given songs. Can you look into this? There are two issues:
Do the samples violate copyright or other criteria for deletion?
If not, can the media bots be corrected so users won't choose to delete valid content just to avoid battling with them?
See "Revert" section on my talk page. Some of the sound samples are:
They're not actually bots – they're real users with media tagging scripts. So I assume they know what they're talking about. Nevertheless, if each file is going to be deleted five days after someone spots it and tags it, they might as well all be deleted now – Gurch15:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, so if I'm reading the situation correctly:
You uploaded the files, or versions of them, and are getting pestered with licencing warnings
You nominated them for speedy deletion because you don't want to be pestered (which is fair enough in a way, but a little uncharitable given the next point :))
The files are (or were) being used in articles
John Cardinal believes the files are being used fairly and should stay
The warning message:
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.
Note that it doesn't say the audio extracts can't be here, it says they need a fair use rationale.
Assuming that my reading of the situation is correct, I recommend the following course of action:
The removals from articles should be reverted, subject to the next point
The editor who wants the files kept should check that each article doesn't have an unfair number of samples and that the samples and the usage thereof comply with our guidelines
He should write a fair use rationale for each. A note can also be left on each file's description page saying that John has taken over responsibility for the upload and any warning can go to him instead of you.
Those files should be kept unless somebody else challenges it per policies (which they likely won't if the above steps are followed)
Any files which aren't needed, which don't comply with policies, or which don't get fair use rationales pronto should be deleted. A list can be provided to me and I'll take care of it.
If that all sounds OK to both parties, let me know and I'll take care of rolling back the removals and John can get to work writing the fair use rationales. --kingboyk15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I should point out that I wasn't just tagging the files for speedy deletion because I was being pestered. I was tagging them for speedy deletion because someone who presumably understands fair use better than me (since they've taken it upon themselves to go on a file-tagging spree) wanted all the ones that they'd come across so far deleted within five days. Had I done nothing they would still have been deleted – especially as administrators now delete images using scripts without actually reading the description pages first – Gurch16:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
John Cardinal reverted all the removals that he cares about anyway; the others have all already been deleted – Gurch16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Kingboyk, thanks for looking into this! Yes, your solution is fine with me. I will try to comply by updating the fair use rationale and leaving a contact me note. I may ask you to review one after I've written it to determine if I've done it properly. John Cardinal16:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Great. Do you need me to undelete anything? (if the software will allow me). It seems that at least one of the listed media is already red. What about rolling back removals of these from articles? --kingboyk16:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't fast enough to save Ticket to Ride, so yes, it would be good if that were restored. If so, it needs to be edited to have the speedy delete template removed so that I have time to update the fair use rationale. John Cardinal16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Done, but you'd better click on the link to check the audio file still downloads properly :) Anything else I can do you for for you my good sir? --kingboyk16:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(undenting) OK, I've updated the FU for both File:Heyjudesample.ogg and . After doing so, I saw your comment about KLF samples and checked out an FU from same. The outcome is similar and so I hope the new FUs will be acceptable. I noted specific tie-ins between the samples and the song articles to illustrate why the presence of the samples improves the song articles. If you have a minute, please read one of the FUs and let me know if you see any problems. Thanks a million for your help. There are some aspects of WP that intimidate me and FU is one. Without your quick response and your belief that the problem could be solved, I might have avoided the issue and let the samples disappear. John Cardinal17:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Just curious why you removed the links to: this from the article. This is an on-line copy of a published article. Kinda curious about some of the other changes, too. Esseh23:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The website was used as a reference but isn't a "reliable source". The article might be (I don't know), so the correct approach would be to cite the article (author, publication, publisher, date, page number) and provide the web link as a "courtesy link". If you need any help with that please let me know. Cheers. --kingboyk23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks. The citation stuff is on the website. As for the article, well, it's in two journals in two languages, and presumably reliable. I'll try to track down a copy of the original articles. Obviously this ref would be appropriate in the John Baker article, as well. Please feel free to place them back in an appropriate format - I had put them in as notes, and planned to add the article citations to a "Reference" list. You might want to check my comments on Commons re: the flag, as well. All the best. Esseh00:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, you have to follow the procedure at WP:GAC. My time is limited so I can't really take on every task on wiki (much as I'd like to), sorry :) --kingboyk21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled about autobiographical articles, but he's a CEO of a major pharmaceutical company and a DESA recipient, either of which should be sufficient to survive A7. The list of links have plenty of fluff, but there are multiple non-trivial sources of information about him. Can you explain this deletion? --BigDT20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Part of a huge vanity campaign, and didn't seem to me at the time to offer any notability assertion beyond professor.
I'm not au fait with scouting issues (although I was a cub and scout back in the day); if receiving that award automatically confers notability then I apologise. The list of recipients does say list of "notable" recipients, which kind of implies that not all are. There are after all several thousand recipients according to that list.
Perhaps the best thing would be to start afresh with a non-autobiographical article? I can supply a copy of the text if you want to write such an article and would like to see what he wrote. Never mind, I see you're an admin. If you think deletion was wrong, undelete it with my permission, but I think a new article by a neutral editor would be far better. --kingboyk20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC) PS It would be nicer if you asked me and waited for my reply before going getting other people involved, as it's possible to get me into trouble for what was a good faith act :) Cheers.
I know Rlevse IRL and he is the coordinator of WP:SCOUT ... there is nothing more than that with me mentioning it to him. I don't know tha the DESA confers notability per se, but anyone likely to receive it would be well known and notable and ... granted to a degree, there's some recentism there inasmuch as we would be more likely to easily accessible references about current day recipients than those who received it a long time ago. --BigDT22:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Anyway, A7 is a judgement call and my general take is that if another admin queries an A7 it's best to defer to their judgement. Please take which ever action you think is best for the encyclopedia, whether that be leaving deleted, undeleting or starting afresh. Cheers. --kingboyk11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. I don't have much knowledge of that case, however. I merely issued a block following an ANI post and then left it for others to debate. --kingboyk11:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem, thanks for taking care of it. Interesting one that; seems that his user page got deleted and then the account was blocked. --kingboyk10:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A request
Hello, I notice that you are an active participant in the Beatles Wikiproject and I thought you would be a good candidate to address some things I was wondering about. I am planning to create a wikiproject shortly on Michael Jackson. I was looking at what you guys had with the Beatles and I liked the layout and the categorization, among many other things. So I was just wondering if I could shamelessly (haha!) copy some of the things from that page, obviously making the appropriate changes along the way. This would be a good idea, it seems to me, since both are musical acts and have many similarities. Although everything on Wikipedia that should be on it is free from copyright protections and I could just copy that page anyway, I though it would be nice to ask.UberCryxic00:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia material is copyright actually, but it's free to copy with acknowledgement (many folks ignore that when copying on-site, but they shouldn't). So, yes, please do copy as much as you want, just say in the edit summary where you got it from :) Good luck. --kingboyk16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You have to make a case at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#12_May_2007, as it's out of an individual's hands now. Do you agree that it's a copyvio? If you do, can you find an old revision before copyrighted material was added? Perhaps we can argue for just the newer edits to be deleted, so that not all the work is lost. --kingboyk16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. In fact, you provided the last revision before the disputed material was inserted. I think you should have the honour of bringing back the article as written at [3]. Steelbeard114:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
MfD discussion of list of people by name
As one of the supporters and instigators of that MfD (I vaguely recall reading a discussion between you and Radiant somewhere), do you think you would have time to respond to some of the concerns raised there? In particular the points I raised and the points raised at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name? I agree the current situation is a morass, but something like List of people by name: X is actually fairly useful (think of the equivalent 'X' index entry in something like the Dictionary of National Biography). In other words, I think 26 pages of pure lists for each letter wouldn't be impossible to create or maintain. Also, as you operate bots, I'd be interested in your opinions on the feasibility of generating several master lists from the transclusions list for {{WPBiography}}, and the articles on the pages being proposed for deletion, and (crucially) comparing the two. Is this feasible? Could I ask for the pages to be preserved until a bot request was approved to turn the pages into a single long list? Carcharoth14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If there's to be any sort of list it does really need to be bot generated I think. Bots can even pick up metadata (just look at WP1 bot and it's use of /Comments pages).
All of the things you mention are quite feasible. However, I'm a bit behind at the moment (and actively working on the next big release of AWB) so I'm gonna refer you to Wikipedia:Bot owners noticeboard where you'll likely get a fuller answer and maybe even some technical suggestions or offers of help. --kingboyk16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Jack
You removed this saying that it was 'nonsense':
Of note is the sometime popularity of this song as a backing track for striptease artists in the dingier pubs of London, England and elsewhere.[citation needed]
It is in fact true, the song was one of the greatest strip anthems ever though I don't have a printed ref for it, just personal experience. However I am actively searching for a ref. Colin4C16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I went through the list of Fry's that Serpent's Choice brought up at the MfD, and all of the ones that didn't have {{WPBiography}} on them were 20th century deaths? Would I be right to assume that this means there hasn't been time yet to run a bot over that category? There was also one Fry, William Henry Fry, that didn't have the talk page tag, but that was because his birth and death dates hadn't been categorised yet! Maybe a search for XXXX-XXXX in the first few sentences all Wikipedia pages is warranted to ferret out the last few biographies that are hiding away in nooks and crannies somewhere? :-) But that still won't find the idiosyncratically formatted and styled biographical articles. Oh well. Carcharoth23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No I haven't finished that category yet. I have the list waiting but have had technical issues. It's a big category (75k or so). --kingboyk10:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I see there is to be a summer drive to assess WP:BIO stuff. The number being bandied around is 113,000 or so. Did the 75k ever get added to that or not? Carcharoth16:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Steve's had some technical problems and has been unable to run AWB. And the SVN version that we currently use isnt in a fit state to be used - loggings broken and such. But it is on the list to be done, all split up and ready to go, just have been unable to do it! Myself, im going to get the last release and just try and do some of the tagging using that. Reedy Boy17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
What he said :) I've now got a new PC, and I'll resume tagging (and AWB development) as soon as I can. It's not likely to be until this weekend at the earliest, however. --kingboyk19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Any advice and suggestions?
You were kind enough to point me toward WP:AIV should I turn out as a wet behind the ears sysop. Any other areas I should consider and, more importantly, where to tread carefully? Oh, yeah, and thanks for placing that bee in my bonnet in the first place (and for the participation). LessHeard vanU12:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, just be sensible and ease yourself in slowly. A few tips:
Reread the relevant policies and everything on the admin list
If you do anything which might be controversial or you're not sure about, ask for advice at WP:AN or WP:ANI. You can also ask for endorsement of your actions there, such as if you've blocked an established user. Admins are a generally helpful bunch and they don't mind admin newbie questions.
What ever you do, don't wheel war (undoing other's admin actions without discussing it first; except where the action was simply housekeeping or it's within guidelines, such as restoring a deleted prod or accepting a request to unblock).
Your test worked. The above article has now been deleted. Please note that creating such articles may be considered vandalism, and may result in action being taken against you. If you wish to discuss this please contact me at my talkpage or, alternatively, you may wish to link to Wikipedia:First steps for a guide in creating articles. Thank you. LessHeard vanU22:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't template the regulars (though on the matter of the page creation, I'm intrigued - probably a copy-paste error?). Martinp2323:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Martin, I created a nonsense page for our newest admin to delete. He shouldn't template the regulars but presumably he's roleplaying so that's cool :) Anyway, link tis red so the button must have been found and used... nice one! --kingboyk08:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
# If it is indeed a violation, and there is no claim or the claimant did not follow up:
* Check the page history. If there are clean revisions in the history, delete the article, then use the undelete function to restore the untainted revisions.
* Otherwise, delete the article.
If the article was rewritten, or there is any indication of it on the talk page or edit summaries, check the temporary subpage /Temp, as linked on the copyvio notice. Move it from there to the main article. Delete the useless redirect that results from this.
Feel happy...
* You just cleared a copyvio. Remove it from the listing on WP:CP.
And when we've finished a whole day's list?
* Remove it from Wikipedia:Copyright problems, add it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Log and do not delete it. The logs are sometimes needed when queries arise after deletion and it helps if all users can read them.
which I think would be the appropriate how to. I have bolded the actions I need take. If this is correct then give me the go ahead and I will proceed. Cheers. LessHeard vanU20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it's delete as copyvio, undelete the good revisions per Steelbeard's research, and remove the listing (what I said basically! gee I'm amazing! ;)). The last point in bold seems to be for when you've cleared up an old day's worth of listings. Ignore that. Ignore the date of the listing too; we're clearing it up for the good of the encyclopedia and nobody disputes there's a copyvio. Need any help, let me know or ask on WP:AN if I'm not around. Cheers. --kingboyk21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It is too late for me tonight. If I can get some time tomorrow evening (real life is impinging) then I shall do it. If there is a time limit (I can't see one) then please go ahead, but otherwise I will do it... once I read up on undelete to ensure I don't lose stuff. LessHeard vanU21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, FYI it was me that found the last clean version, I was checking on who copied who. I noted it at the talkpage and Steelbeard must have noted it there. LessHeard vanU21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Done per above. I have also advised Steelbeard, who I believe copied a later version to his userspace and may have later (non CopyVio) material he may want to add back in. LessHeard vanU20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! That's quite a complicated manouvre for a newbie admin, and it looks like you've done it right. Well done :) --kingboyk10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Copy of CSD'd article request
Hey Steve,
could you please help me out and get me a copy of Guided torpedo. The original author wants add proper cites and merge parts of it into another article. I've already explained the importance of WP:N and WP:CITE.
Please see my userpage for a link to my username history. The page explains my name change; I appreciate your discretion. --Spike Wilbury15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I hope I didn't speak out of turn nor that my query is problematic for you. Cheers. --kingboyk21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It was the being beaten bit, I was on course to thwack 2 vandals with indef blocks within 5 minutes and then along comes PC Copper, aka the fastest gun in the west, and spoils my glory! :P She's out to get me, I tell ya! (lol) --kingboyk09:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate
I'm not sure we've talked before, but either way I wanted to thank you for finding the content of my old guided torpedo. I'll add all relevant information to the torpedo article; I won't add information if it's redundant to do so. --MKnight998912:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I decided...
I decided to add the guided torpedo information to acoustic torpedo, as I thought it would fit better. I took out the opinions and speculations, and added my sources. Cheers mate. --MKnight998912:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh Cupid Kingboyk!
Kingboyk and Phaedriel as seen by an artist after drinking a whole barrel of Root beer.
Stevie, please feel free to "steal" this image for your own personal use - that's the beauty of PD stuff! ;) Also, I suggest you check your MSN status... surprise! See you there asap! Mwah, Phaedriel - 09:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I spoke to you a while back about a page for Adam Morris was removed, due to problems with the references. I have now got a reference to a industry magazine, and the article can be found at User:Adamiow/Temp. Please can you put check this article and then put it up on the page, as I have had problem with consulting the administrators as you suggested. Thank you. Adamiow13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Installing Navigational popups for all users on another wiki
I apologize in advance if this is trashing your page (I'm less than a week into the "wiki" thing, so I don't know the etiquette). I'm not sure if you ever found a solution to the question about Navigational popups question that you posed back in January. I've come up with a hack solution that may work for you. If it does, and you can generalize it in a way that works for everybody, by all means, document it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2obvious (talk • contribs).
Apologies
Sorry folks, been busy in real life, including assembling a new computer. Will answer messages soon. --kingboyk22:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!
You helped develop and maintain a WikiProject of frightening size, the Biography project, and have been wonderfully effective in making it one of the better run projects out there. I think you really should be the first person to receive this. John Carter01:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate, that's very nice and much appreciated :)
Again, folks, I must apologise for my lack of recent contribs (and work on AWB); I'll answer messages soon. I've been busy, including building a new PC which has taken longer than expected. --kingboyk12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That's just a crying shame. But if she wants to populate her user page with images of herself, violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE, and create meatpuppets that vandalize Wikipedia pages, then I'm not pouting. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies
Thinking back on the issue, I was probably more harsh than lenient. I should have given the user more feedback on what is appropriate for the images, and in not doing so, I may have caused the loss of a constructive editor for Wikipedia. I am taking full responsibility for that. I am also taking responsibility for my harshness in the replies, but please assume good faith in my edits; they were not meant to detract from Wikipedia or from another editor. I'll e-mail the user and leave an apology note on her talk page. Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
