User talk:Patstuart/Archive 3

Chile article

In respect of my contribution to Chile's article: I think that my point of view is very neutral compared to what was written on Chile's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.165.115 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your response. I looked at what was in the article, and the edits you made did indeed appear to have a strong and unnecessary leftward tilt to them before you changed them. However, with all due respect, some of your changes went equally too far to the right. For example, this one:[1]. Praising Allende for "advancing workers interests" is POV, but calling him a lawbreaker is equally so. If you can find a way of removing the language praising the leftists, without condemning them with your own, by all means do; it would be welcomed. -Patstuart 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an idiot

I need for someone to remind me regularly...don't feed the trolls. I assumed good faith; look where it got me? (See: User talk:Ion-weapon) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; you handled it right; there was still the chance that the guy thought his contributions worthwhile (which he probably still does, but he's apparently not too good with self-control or seeing other people's POVs). You don't feed them once they get weird. If now he decided to get indignant, then you ignore him. -Patstuart 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least now if he continues to post nonsense, I can take him to WP:AIV with a clear conscience. I still don't know if he's just naive and thinks he's trying to save the world from Communism, or (what seems more likely now) he's just your garden-variety troll using Wikipedia as his entertainment. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear...I gave him a test4 warning...it's not appropriate to take him to WP:AIV now, only if (when) he vandalizes again. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed him from WP:AIV. I never take someone there until they've vandalized after being given one last chance with a test4 or blatanvandal. If he vandalizes now, I can take him there with a clear conscience.

Fair enough; it's your call. -Patstuart 01:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church

Looks like we had the same idea at the same time! Take a look at what I added...I put comments in where people will see them if they just edit those specific sections. Feel free to reword the warnings if you think they aren't strong enough. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, no, they're definitely strong enough. I don't think people are adding them in maliciously, to be honest; most people didn't even see the previous warning. That's why I decided to add them in at every point; I didn't look at yours too closely, are they redundant? Anyway, I a lot of people are creating sites about Westboro, and they all think their site will be relevant and unique, not realizing that 40 other people all thought the same thing. -Patstuart 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings I added might be redundant, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing if it increases the odds that someone will see at least one of the notes. My warnings just refer them to WP:EL and to justify in their edit summary why this particular additional link adds value beyond what's already in the article and the other dozen or so links. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

You said: "Some of the images you have tagged for deletion have not necessarily needed to be tagged as such. I'm not saying all of them, but some of them have a clear fair-use rationale on them. Take Image:SpongeSeason 1.jpg for example: it is clearly a DVD cover, and it is marked as such, but you put a {{no rationale}} tag on it. I'm just asking you to be careful, as taking out fair-use images won't help anything. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to point something out."

Right, but in order for us to use a copyrighted image, we must have a "detailed fair-use rationale for each use", as the license points out. The image does not have one so I tagged it with the no-rationale tag. --Yamla 20:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is provided very clearly provided with the tags. That's the reason the tags exist. If it is not provided with a tag, or the tag is clearly wrong, then it may be deleted. But if the tag is clear, and the image fits the description, that is enough. Trust me on this one. -Patstuart 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is your claim that even though the license explicitly states that a detailed fair-use rationale must be provided for each use, this is not actually a requirement and that such images should not be tagged with the no-rationale tag? I'll grant that you may be right but I'd like to see some evidence of this. It directly contradicts the license text and the fair-use section of the Image copyright tags page, which specifically includes {{DVDcover}} as a license that must include a reason for fair use. Just to be clear, I accept the possibility that you are right, but I would like to see some evidence of this. --Yamla 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the best I can do: I'll first mention anecdotal evidence. I think anecdotal is important, because of the policy leaves any gray room, it's important to look at how it's been done in the past: Anecodotal:

Other admins have uploaded images, and provided the fair use tag, but nothing else. They think that's enough, when it's obvious what the file is.
- An example: Image:Going_straight_dvd.jpg was uploaded by an admin, given a DVD cover, and left at that, because it's clear what the license is. Nothing else needs to be said; everyone knows it's a DVD cover, and no-copyright holder is going to be able to claim "that isn't correct."

Policy:

I don't see the policy saying that a fair-use image is not acceptable if it doesn't have an in-depth description under Fair_use#Images: it's not in the instructions either, which only say: "Labeling images as fair use can be done with the fair use copyright tags. If you have found a file that appears to be fair use, you can add a tag corresponding to the type of material to the image description page:" These words definitely make it sound like labeling is enough to make it fair-use.
Here's a clear policy stating that common sense should be used in terms of if it's fair-use: "Reviewers are urged to consider that some discretion and personal judgement is required in assessing whether certain of these requirements are met..." This seems to be saying: if discretion and personal judgment clearly show that it meets the rationale (e.g., magazine covers, DVD covers, even headshots), then it need not be disputed.
If there's a question as to the fair use rationale, the policy advocates this: "For example rewording an inadequately written Fair Use rationale, or deleting unnecessary information, is a far more constructive action than simply deeming that a criterion has not been met." Granted, it does say inadequately written rationale, but that could just as easily mean only for ambiguous images, or perhaps ones with poor rationale tagged (e.g., Image:DSC02293.jpg, which only says "it's copyrighted" and nothing more).
"If you believe an image that is tagged as fair use is definitely not fair use, you can add {{fair use disputed}}". It seems that the standard way of handling a poorly rationaled image is to tag it for disputed, not deletion.
Finally, the {no use rationale} tag says the image "has no explanation as to why it is permitted under Wikipedia's rules for fair use." But many of these do provide a rationale, and it's in the individual tags given (e.g., {dvdcover}). For example- "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos..." This rationale is quite clear, especially if it's obvious what the image is for.

I'm not saying that if it's not obvious, or if there appears to be a bad tag, then not to provide the no rationale tag. But some of these are obvious, and I hope some of the policy and reasoning I've provided can help us agree on the issue. -Patstuart 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to thank you for discussing this issue with me. You could just have told me to take a hike or something. Anyway, let's take a look at Image:Esquire Jennifer Connelly 1991 8.jpg, the Jennifer Connelly picture that I tagged today. The image was moved to the infobox this morning which means that it was not being used according to the license. It was instead being used specifically to depict Connelly, not in context of discussing that particular issue of the magazine. That's why I tagged that image. With the image moved back to the paragraph concerning the issue of the magazine, a compelling argument could be made that the image is now being used in accord with the license. This seems to be the consensus of the people on the discussion page as well, though the discussion just started. So, whether or not this image is fair-use depends on how it is used in the article. I am much happier if this is spelled out in a rationale on the image page. That the license specifically states that a detailed fair-use rationale should be added seems, to me, to support this contention. In this case, the rationale would be simple, something along the lines of, "used to depict issue of magazine in question in paragraph which discusses this issue, not solely to depict Connelly." Now, I previously mentioned that the image description page specifically mentions that the dvdcover requires a detailed rationale. In many cases, the fair-use case is obvious. It's a DVD cover used to illustrate the particular DVD in question. But the image description page and the license text both still indicate that the rationale is required. Also, what often ends up happening is that the DVD image then gets used to depict something outside of the license. A DVD of a movie starring Connelly, for example, used solely to illustrate what Connelly looks like.

Now, I've been using the fair-use-disputed tag for quite some time but recently, people have been correcting that to the missing-rationale tag, so I just started using that. This has the added advantage of requiring that the issue be resolved in short order and providing a simple copy-and-paste official warning template which can be used (and is specifically designed) to warn the person who uploaded the image.

I am concerned that a great number of images on Wikipedia are used in blatant violation of copyright. This is clear and I doubt anyone would debate it. As a result, I personally do request that people who upload copyrighted images provide an accurate source, an accurate license, and a detailed fair-use rationale. In all honesty, I'm quite happy with any reasonable attempt at a fair-use rationale and accept many that I believe fall far short of what Wikipedia officially requests. I believe it is important to deal with images without sufficient information because continuing to accept images which may violate copyright put us at direct risk. It may be obvious to the uploader why an image is fair-use but we may not be able to contact the uploader when we are sued. And as I mentioned before, I believe both the license and image description help page specifically require this.

Now that I have stated my point and you have stated your point, there's a very good chance that we aren't going to agree. I'm happy to request additional help, perhaps from the admin noticeboard policies page, if you think this would be productive. --Yamla 21:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irooni now indef-blocked.

Hello! My first block was on the assumption that this editor was not a troll/vandal-only account. I now believe that they are a vandal and as such I have increased the block indefinitely. (aeropagitica) 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in Iran

For Buddhism in Iran, you tagged the article for speedy deletion per CSD G4, which is about reposted material. The AfD that you speak was put up only today, and it has yet to be completed, so the article would not qualify under G4. CSD G4 is only applicable to articles that have previously been deleted by admins as a result of previous Xfd's. Anyway, it looks like it will be deleted in approximately five days. Nishkid64 23:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm sorry. So it doesn't matter that it was speedy deleted today. I see. -Patstuart 00:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it was intentional....

I was being cheeky, as they just left this message for another sysop - hence the block. :) My stupid sense of humor I guess! Thanks for keeping an eye out though! Glen 17:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC

Hi, I noticed the message you left on User talk:24.45.45.39 asking the user to be more careful with spelling, grammar and punctuation. Is there a template for that message or did you create it yourself? Sometimes I feel like I could use that. Regards.--Hús ö nd 17:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template is {{subst:SpellCheck}}. I found it on a list of user warning templates at WP:UTM. This is pretty useful, and covers nearly every category. -Patstuart 17:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) --Hús ö nd 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for your aid. Salutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.77.85.155 (talk • contribs)

I live in Puerto Montt, Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.77.85.155 (talk • contribs)

Smile!

Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't harm you, why ruin something that i was working on?

Well deleting my article just drove away one user thanks for deleting something that many people would have enjoyed reading and in no way harms the website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfuji513 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry if you have a problem with this, but I didn't delete your article. If you have a policy issue, I would much rather suggest you take it up with the admin who did delete it. I'm sure Lucky would be willing to have a conversation with you on the matter. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I'd advise keeping patient on the issue. Becoming angry will not help your cause in the slighteste. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to put this on Lucky's user talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfuji513 (talk • contribs)

understood. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much!

I appreciate your having watched my back regarding Tfuji513. Owe ya one.

Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Pleasure is mine! -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info.com and the List of search engines

Hello Patstuart. I notice you trying to keep out inappropriate links from List of search engines. Lately a link to Info.com was added there in the 'metasearch engine' category. Seems hard to exclude it if the subject company has an article. They are in fact a metasearch engine. So unless an AfD is proposed for Info.com it seems we have to keep the link. I could find only one genuine print article about the company. It appeared in the Chicago Tribune in 2004, at [2]. At the time, the company was said to have 10 employees. It is hard to search for 'info.com' but easier to look for the name of the company's president, Stephen Scarr. However this search finds no articles in major publications. Do you think this is sufficient notability? If you want to express an opinion, and think it appropriate, I will transfer the entire discussion to Talk:Info.com. EdJohnston 20:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to feel like a science fiction movie: [3]. Is panic called for yet :-) EdJohnston 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB, states that the notability guidelines for a website having an article on Wikipedia are, among others: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." This does state multiple, and it's not clear if you fit those guidelines. However, the fact remains that info.com does have a Wikipedia site, and I'm certainly not up to doing the disservice of nominating your article for deletion after you pointed it out to me. The problem comes when people create new articles about non-notable websites, add it to the list, and the article is immediately deleted. If the site has an article on Wikipedia, that is enough, unless it is removed. Hope that's a good enough answer. :) -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the author of Info.com, perish the thought. Meanwhile, HighInBC has struck at the root of the matter. [4] by filing an AfD on List of search engines itself. I don't know what to say, except it seems non-Wikipedian that there is no comment on the individual items on the list of search engines. It seems that List of academic journal search engines may inherit some of the issues discussed here. EdJohnston 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to wait for someone else to comment, who can do so in a more official manner, but I'm going to vote keep, or at least weak keep on the article. The policy he gave seems to not address this situation. As for academic journals, I don't know anything about that one! -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Barta

Yea, I realized that was a pretty insulting thing to say regardless of wikipedia policy or not so I changed that on my own. I put she is disliked by some as is a common fact. Is that ok with you? Twentyboy 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you could say something like "her antics made her a controversial figure" or some other euphimism like that - especially if you could provide a source. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just want me to erase it? I thought I was being accurate. I mean, the page already implies she is disliked by some by saying someone called her a worker ant to a queen bitch. I mean, read that part Twentyboy 22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it flows together by first saying she is disliked by some Twentyboy 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, imho, maybe you could say something like "many of the castmembers disliked her." with a reference. In English class, they always said to avoid passive voice; in this case, the reason is clear for that: it's important to know who disliked her. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, thank you for talking it out with me. Boy, you're a good administrator. You can change it to any style you like because to be honest I don't know where I could find references :) Twentyboy 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite an administrator. Just a Recent Changes Patroller and someone who does a lot of edits. Anyone can add warnings and discuss - and most people don't know you're not an admin. Cheers. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, in that case, you leave my edits alone you... lol, I'm just kidding :P :D lol. Happy editing! Twentyboy 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how come you haven't gone for administrator yet? You're edits are in good faith and I would elect you. :) Twentyboy 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response on talk:Muhammad

Hi Patstuart, I was hoping you would have something to say about this which was written in response to one of your comments. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:69.181.67.234

Hey, I'd already responded to that anon's edits in He-Man, and since he reverted himself I posted something a little less stern. Cheers for your work, though, just thought I'd let you know you were doubling up on that one. -- nae'blis 04:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. Please read this: [5]. It explains how to treat new editors. And listing me to be investigated and then removed is not the way to do it. The Crying Orc 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question about page deletion

I received this message and am looking for clarification why the page was deleted:

Hi 7george7, The Article you just wrote, Erica Meier, has been tagged for Speedy Deletion, because it is recreated material, that has been deleted before. If an administrator deletes an article, with consensus or not, please do not recreate it, as it will be deleted again. If you wish to contest this place {{hangon}} on the article, and the reason on the talk page. Thanks!

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Erica Meier. Your test worked, and has been or will soon be removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7george7 (talk • contribs)

I would suggest you take up the matter with Lucky 6.9 ((talk), who deleted it twice, then protected it from recreation. I don't remember the page exactly, but I'm fairly sure there was no substantive content on it. Lucky can look at the history and elaborate better. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning The Crying Orc on WP:RFI

After a questionable edit on one of the pages on my watchlist, I checked into this guy's edit history and saw definite POV-pushing; many, if not most, of his edits have been biased and counterproductive. And this was before I stumbled upon WP:RFI. Since I agree with you on this issue, is there anything I can do? What I'm really asking is, should I/do I need to say something on the WP:RFI page, sort of add my two cents? I'm unfamiliar with this area of Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. —EdGl 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm a little frustrated with the admins right now, that they're not going quicker. I'm worried that because he's put up a strong defense, no one's going to do anything. I would say, perhaps put in a hardy endorsement in on the RFI page, and even chime in to one of the admins to hurry up and investigate. Anything more I say probably won't help.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, I'm buried at work today; I'll take a look when I get a chance. Offhand, my guess is that this sort of review just takes a bit longer than obvious WP:AIV stuff. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, and I will review it. I just wanted to let you know I'd seen your note, but I wouldn't have a chance to respond in detail for several hours. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added some observations to the WP:RFI. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sensible to carefully review all of his edits and correct any errors that might have been introduced. (Just as it would be prudent to carefully review all edits of Evolution made by an aggressively proselytizing Creationist). Unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with the musical genre and groups in question, so I'm unable to help. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another warning

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

I object to your comments above, which seem to indicate that you are not interested in whether or not I am contributing positively in the eyes of administrators but just want me removed because you don't agree with me. The Crying Orc 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the hard work!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award The Working Man's Barnstar to Patstuart. You are one of the best vandal-fighters on Wikipedia, and I constantly see you reporting vandals for me to block at AIV. Thanks for all your contributions, and keep up the great work. Nishkid64 23:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:Big smile: Thank you very much. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Gerardo; Criterion validity; Brevard County Manatees; Laylat al-Qadr; Krum High School; Common Periwinkle; Turkey Day Game; Youthink; Sos Eltis; Julia Volkova; Erasistratus; Back-to-school; Elena Katina; College Football News; Joseph Carr; ACAZ T-2; MGOCSM; Calvary Christian High School (Clearwater, Florida); Ashland High School (Ohio)

Cleanup: Happy slapping; Miss Colombia; Sheldon J. Plankton
Merge: John Lewis Southampton; John Lewis Nottingham; War of Jenkins' Ear
Add Sources: Hagwon; Christian Heritage School (Georgia); Suspension (school punishment)
Wikify: AJ McLean; Joseph Robert Wright, Jr.; Chilean Spanish
Expand: Islamic art; Rob Thomas (writer); World Economic Forum

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for smile

thanks for the smile it looks like we are helping fix the same pages today Yuckfoo 01:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im not vandalizing

u guys just keep erasing my stuff. its not vandalism. Fabolou$ 01:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem was this edit: [6]. If you make the page good, and don't try to add any more shananigans, then you won't be reverted, and the bot won't revert you either. The last time, the bot reverted you because you put extra junk in the article again [7]. So keep it clean, and nothing will happen. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rvv's on Pilgrimage article

Thanks for the persistent & righteous reverts on Pilgrimage! Good work! LarryR 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Social Movements

There was another IP that had vandalized as well before the one you reverted. I fixed it tho :) E. Sn0 =31337= 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this happens occasionally. At this time of day, there are a ridiculous amount of school vandalisms (where they know they can get away with it), and we don't even catch them all. There's rarely time to go back and check to make sure there was no vandalism before the previous edit. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for allowing only user accounts, not anon IPs, from any school, government office, or ISP which uses rotating proxies (AOL I'm looking at you with hate in my eyes). E. Sn0 =31337= 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I happen to agree with that completely. It takes 2 minutes to set up a user account. But I don't think Wikipedia is about to say that school kids can't edit. I think, at very least, there should be a permanent soft block on aol addresses though. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i wasn't vandalising

i wasn't expirementing with the casual relationships article. i was listing an alternative term for "casual relationships" under the headline, a term that is probably more widely used, despite it's vulgarity, then the term "Casual Relationship" itself. I do also know that 'Fuck Buddy' Redirects to casual relationships, but considering the commonality of the term 'Fuck Buddy' I felt it also warrented inclusion. i was not vandalizing, and it should not have been removed. please correct this. Donthaveaspaz 04:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, he's correct. The term is vulgar, but in the context of that article, it's a valid synonym. It's been on Wikipedia [8], originally as a standalone article, then later as a redirect to Casual relationship, since Valentine's Day last year (romantic, don't you think?) :-) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can feel free to correct it yourself, but I'll probably revert it, as I'll explain shortly. I will remove the warning from your page, as your edits were made in good faith, and any subsequent changes would be a content dispute; but it seems pretty clear that the term fails WP:Profanity: Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. While Wikipedia is not censored, I didn't think that this contributed anything much to the article, and only served to make it more vulgar. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the omission does cause the article to be less informative, relevent, and accurate, considering that's one of the most commen slang phrases for it. This is a common case of censorship for the easily offensible versus completeness of information. It seems like everyone should be a little more mature then that. Donthaveaspaz 03:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Wikipedia standards say to assume good faith with your fellow editors. You didn't assume good faith with me, and in order to have my warning removed i had to actually prove my good faith to you. If you've honestly never heard the phrase 'Fuck Buddy' before, I may be able to understand your actions. But assuming that you have heard it, doesn't this all seem a little overzellous?Donthaveaspaz 03:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't assume good faith. To be honest, what happens is, as a recent page patroller, we see very quickly what the changes to a page are, and immediately revert it (and warn) or ignore it. But the process is very quick (there is LOTS of vandalism). Prealize that 98% of the time when someone adds any of the words "fuck", "gay" or "nigger" to an article, it's just a group of 15 year old boys goofing around. But there are good edits, and occasionally and I will misread the situation and err - I even have a userbox on my page that says so. Again, sorry about that - it was an error on my part.

the omission does cause the article to be less informative... I guess I just disagree with you. I realize we ought to be more mature, but I think that Wikipedia ought to be both professional and mature. If, for example, you look under a standard encyclopedia, under the definition of penis, you will find a diagram. However, if you look under "close relationship", I don't think you'll find the term "fuck buddy". Normally, under professional standards, some sort of profanity is accepted, but it is usually only added when necessary. So I disagreed with your edits, and it's just a content dispute, I guess.

in order to have my warning removed i had to actually prove my good faith to you Thank you for being mature and handling it that way.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way on it myself. It's a common term, but it's vulgar, and it's not really clear how necessary it is to the article. It's there as a redirect, so if someone tries to get to an article of that name, they end up at the Casual relationship article. Arguably, that's enough. Another option would be to simply ask on the article's talk page if the term should be included somewhere in the article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he's actually already done so himself. I tried to put in a word, but it wasn't too strong either way. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent myself, so I'll abstain. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i do understand the 15 year old boy situation. I didn't realize that was as common as you say. Honestly I think actuall wikipedia vandalism, if i were to ever do such a thing, seems pretty boring. but hey, i'm not 15, lol. Anyways, your right, it is just a disagreement over a content issue.

Also, to promote my opinion: According to Britannica.com, the word 'Fuck' Didn't come up at all when i searched for it, nor does an article on casual relationships. If there was however, would it include fuck buddy? definitely not, but in instances like this wikipedia becomes it's own entity divergent from old school encyclopedias. along with being factually up to date, it's also culturally a lot more up to date, and maybe that should include a more mature use of swear words.

An Example: Britannica would NEVER have an article on doing it Doggy style. ;-)

Donthaveaspaz 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]