User talk:Sdedeo/archive5

President Ahmadinejad

Hi and thanks for your works on this pages. The student protest of December 2006 is very important from Iranian people's POV and needs to be covered properly. It is not true that the president welcome the criticisms. He was shocked by an unexpected protest. But later on many of those students have been detained and got stars. A student with three stars can not continue his/her education according to a new policy by Ahmadinejad's government.Sina Kardar 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sina -- thanks! I am not in any way knowledgable about contemporary Iranian society (though I have two Iranian friends here in the States.) Any kind of information (properly sourced, of course) on that incident, or on the situation in general, that you can contribute I'm sure would be fantastic. Very interesting to learn about this "star" system, by the way. Sdedeo (tips) 21:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I'm sure you're already aware, but you're up to three edits at Conflict of interest. Please discuss changes on the talk page instead of revert warring. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, "three edits" is not "three reverts". I have not reverted on this page once, while you, unfortunately, have. Thanks for playing, though. Sdedeo (tips) 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

I deny the existence of the Mediation Cabal. There is no cabal. (Ok, I'm just kidding - I know that there is, in fact, a cabal. I've tried to help out there from time to time, but unfortunately have been too busy at work of late to devote the time required to mediate. Hopefully I'll be able to do more in the future when things slow down. Thanks for your note! --TheOther Bob 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think "fascinating" is the word. It actually gives me a lot of faith in the wikiprocess -- most of the mediations have been with good faith editors trying to deal with a noxious troll and needing a little "disinterested" help. Sdedeo (tips) 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only...

If only I could come to your aid, by hitting Milo H Minderbender over the head with a garden spade, I would. But, alas, that would probably violate some self-contradictory Wikipedia rule. --ElkJaw MusicBoss 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No spades! But do contribute to the discussion if you wish (and think you can keep your cool!) Sdedeo (tips) 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there lies the rub. I wouldn't be able to keep my cool, and would surely be banned within hours. --ElkJaw MusicBoss 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the above comment as I was not informed of the reasons for its deletion. (Am sure it was done in good faith, of course.) Sdedeo (tips) 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Ah, I see -- banned user. Sdedeo (tips) 16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

autoblock unblock request

Hi Raul654 -- this is a cafe with wireless in Wicker Park, Chicago. I ran into a similar block from the café next door -- seems like me and Cplot share a neighbourhood. That said, there are tens of thousands of young wikipedians here and a partial unblock of this address would be greatly appreciated. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted him about it, see User_talk:Raul654#Range_block_collateral_damage. Sandstein 06:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandstein. This has happened before. Cplot I understand is incredibly persistent and a huge pain, but there is definitely collateral damage going on. The two cafés in question are in the heart of hipster-laptop-facebook-myspace land, and I'm sure I'm not the only one suffering. Sdedeo (tips) 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

It used to be WP:VANITY. Gazpacho 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No joke! That is instruction creep for sure. Good to know. Sdedeo (tips) 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meta-discussion

Hey Sdedeo, I thought you brought up some good points on WP:COI:talk, (and I proposed some changes on the talk page there to address them), but I hope you won't be offended if I offer some constructive criticism on how you've handled the discussion so far. While I realize there doesn't seem to be any consensus as yet on how long to wait, my personal feeling is to wait at least a day on lightly-edited articles, several days on more heavily-edited articles, and at least a week on community-wide consensus articles such as policies and guidelines. (Actually, I think I'm going to try to get this approved at WP:CONSENSUS.) By imposing a relatively short response-deadline before you revert the page, you prevent editors with an opinion who may be otherwise occupied with their "real lives" from responding to your comments. I would offer myself up as an example. I didn't get involved in this discussion until several days after it began, but I still have something to contribute. Even if you don't agree with my comments, there might be other editors out there who come along fairly late in the discussion and get everyone on board a new consensus. Anyway, I've really rambled on here, so I'll just stop and let you respond. :) --Aervanath 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky. Milo was a pretty hostile discussion partner, and because he was strongly invested in keeping the article unchanged all he had to do was disappear or refuse to engage in discussion. If you follow the discussion, my first couple attempts went a little like this

Hey I have a problem with this article.
Anyone?
OK, I am editing the article.
OK, someone reverted me. Can that person explain?
Here is my response.
Where did you go?
Return to number 3.

On articles where some people are interested only in preserving a favourite version, in other words, "if you leave, I will edit as I see fit" is a good way to keep things moving and I used to propose it as a mediator when an arguing party decided to unilaterally leave the discussion while implicitly demanding that (whatever -- the NPOV template, etc. etc.) stay the same.

Now that others have joined in, the discussion has got going and these kinds of things aren't necessary. Sdedeo (tips) 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to be clear -- I never reverted the article. Each time I edited, I tried something new to see if people could live with it. This is a rule to live by (though I don't always.) Sdedeo (tips) 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. It seems like I jumped to a conclusion on this, and I apologize. Seems like I should have posted my above comment on the other guys talk pages, instead. Actually, if you look at WP:Consensus, there is a flow-chart that pretty much mirrors your process above. Unfortunately, it seems like you came out looking like the bad guy on this one, at least initially, although now that we've got a debate going, hopefully people will calm down and we can come to a true consensus.--Aervanath 06:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really worried about looking like a "good" or "bad" guy to be honest -- worrying about what people on the internet think of you is a sure path to madness! Sdedeo (tips) 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too true!--Aervanath 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China article

Actually the problem with the article is that it's a term paper: "Please offer reasons for and against the chances of China becoming a superpower in 5,000 words or less.". I'm trying to explain to Perceval under which conditions an article for the topic can be kept, but I agree it would have to be rewritten from scratch, with actual evidence that this is a topic discussed by academics, think tanks or suchlike. It's pretty interesting. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey T&E -- I just looked over the article pretty quickly. It seems there is a lot of crap, definitely. But as long as the reasons are sourced (i.e., not just the facts, but the fact that the fact is used by someone notable to claim superpower status), it seems OK, no? Sdedeo (tips) 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:OR#SYNTH forbids that pretty explicitly. It kinda silly because it's pretty good stuff, balanced and well-referenced at least (from what I saw, didn't read all of it), and the nomination is off because it makes all kinds of IR-related arguments which don't really play into it. The question is rather, did someone discuss the question in an acceptably academic fashion (think tanks are enough). If yes, it could be made into an article. The individual speculation that's in there needs to go somewhere else though. ~ trialsanderrors 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for voting keep was that I was pretty darn sure that at least someone "discussed the question" of whether China was going to end up a superpower! I mean, I took a class on it actually. It just seems really obvious that it's not SYNTH to have an article centering on different answers to the question. Tacking on an OR tag to the top of the article -- as opposed to deletion -- seems to be the way to go. Sdedeo (tips) 05:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I agree. It was more about steering the discussion in the right direction. Although it TLDR already, so it'll probably go nowhere. ~ trialsanderrors 05:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet if you copy-pasted like a chapter of Finnegan's wake there (or into the Socionomics AfD) --

nobody would notice.
if someone did notice, they would disagree.

Sdedeo (tips) 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth a shot... ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't understand that sentence (can someone explain or clarify?)

I assume the question refers to the sentence in the "older edit" version of the A.C. Clarke Wiki page that you recently revised.

"*Larry Niven criticized the lack of using magic in fantasy settings by stating...." became in your version "*Larry Niven, in discussing fantasy, wrote...."

I agree the phrase "the lack of using magic" is confusing. I believe what was meant (and how I would have reworded the sentence) was "*Larry Niven criticized writers' failure to include magic in fantasy settings...."

IMHO, your edit changed the meaning. In the older version, Niven was criticizing and stating. In the newer version, he is discussing and writing. If it please the court, these are not the same things. —The preceding

David F 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi David -- two problems --

there is a dangling participle (who is Larry Niven criticizing for not using magic? The characters?)
I'm happy to assume that the quote is accurate, but I think one would need the context to establish that Niven intended his phrase to be in part a criticism. (There's nothing inherently critical in the quote.)

Yours,

Sdedeo (tips) 21:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Citations

You sent me a welcome when I first signed up here. I have a concern about RS citations. Let me know when you are free so I can discuss it with you. I need a neutral opinion. Thanks John196920022001 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block needed on IP address vandalising your page?

Sdedeo, I bring to your attention the main page and talk page of the page I think you created, Censorware, for action as you see fit. I can take no further action so as not to violate 3RR, but blocks may be needed. And see the history page to see how polite I have been, including providing wiki-friendly guidance, only to be personally attacked due to my user page content. And lest that attack bias you, I am not on any such campaign -- the issue was decided long ago -- I just changed the redirect links now to the actual links as decided long ago. Thank you for looking into this, if you do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LAEC -- part of the origin of this conflict is probably your user page, which engages in some pretty strident POV advocacy. I suggest a gander at User:Sdedeo/Advice_for_wikipedians. Sdedeo (tips) 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, given this and your experience, I'll likely change my page soon. Thanks. And thanks for the support on the Censorware page that has already been reverted by that IP address again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Thanks again. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:2005riot rioters.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2005riot rioters.jpg. However, the image is missing a fair use rationale. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair-use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:2005riot_rioters.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2005riot_rioters.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 08:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Rubenomnipotence.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)

You participated in the first AFD, so you may be interested in the second AFD over the recreated article. THF 12:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.

Seems to have been vandalism. The user wanted to leave anyway, so there shouldn't be much of a problem. Sr 13 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamploma

Yes, a regular since 1967, but you need a citation. I could add it to my web sight, somehow. remind me in a week. Lentower 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of town these days, but am hoping to get a second postdoc in Cambridge. Perhaps I'll see you around! Sdedeo (tips) 02:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding

In reference to this edit, exactly what is it about that article that is "very good"? It's disorganised, not NPOV, inaccurate and has proseline! In all, it's a bloody awful article. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TBSDY -- my feeling is that those tags are close to useless. If you want to help, I suggest that instead of just adding a tag at the top, you go through and flag individual sections or even sentences that you consider problematic. That way the rest of us can help improve. Adding a "IDONTLIKEIT" notice at the top is very unhelpful. Sdedeo (tips) 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Inc

I semi-protected it for a month, and that semi-protection will expire on the 27 of September. I'll change the expiry date so that it ends on the 10 of September (less than two days from now). Is that satisfactory? Acalamari 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's certainly reasonable. A month-long block for IP vandalism seems too strong. Also, I believe it is standard to add a tag to the top of the article explaining that the article is semi-protected (in addition to the automatically introduced "lock" icon). Sdedeo (tips) 19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection will expire on 01:00 10 September. Thanks. Acalamari 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Best American Poetry Series

Thank you for your help here. I am writing you here and not on that page because I don't want to escalate further with Burks88. I continue to have objections to the manner in which he's editing the page and in the tone of his comments, which seem to me to be on the level of personal attack. I wonder if you think bringing this to the cabal makes sense. There's also the question of how much time one wants to invest in this, naturally. I respect your wish to sit this out but since you have experience with this kind of thing (extensive, it seems)I wonder if you would comment or post on my talk page. Thanks. WaverlyR 12:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Sdedeo. Giving the ongoing disagreements, I've asked for WP: CEM. I hope it works. WaverlyR 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI on BAP at BLP

I don't know if you'll be interested, but just in case: I've brought the The Best American Poetry series matter to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Noroton 20:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noroton. I am curious to see what happens with the WP:CEM request (this is new to me, I was unaware of its existence; it has as of yet had no successful resolutions, but perhaps this time it will work.) As I said on the discussion page, the solution to the conflict is obvious -- no potentially inflammatory statistics or observations that have not been made by a reliable secondary source. If WaverlyR and Burks88 agreed to stop editing this article, I'm sure you and I together could put together something good, but passions run high. Sdedeo (tips) 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We probably could. Neither of us seem to have that much passion about it. Actually, I'm pretty impressed with their knowledge and I think they've both improved the article. I had no idea, for instance, that all those spouses had poems in the series. I'm waiting for just a bit more exact information from Burks88 from those acknowledgements sections (otherwise I can't defend it and it will have to go). Your idea about WP:OR may prevail, I don't know. Obviously, the article needs to be on solid ground, and right now it's not. The funny thing is, I really think that eventually some reporter is going to get interested in the idea of poems by spouses (and maybe others) being included in the series, and then we're going to have the secondary source. I've also noticed that a reviewer has praised poems from two of the wives. Noroton 02:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Whenever a reliable source makes a fuss, we can report on it. It reminds me of the who Foetry.com thing: it would be wrong for wikipedia to start talking about how many Iowa graduates won that's school (supposedly unbiased) poetry prize in the absence of any reliable source fuss, but as soon as someone not on wikipedia puts the bell on the cat, then we can hear it ring. As soon as Foetry's discoveries "hit the news" (and it did, and quickly -- the Boston Globe and New York Times both covered the allegations), then we could do it. Sdedeo (tips) 02:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to agree right now to stop editing this entry, on condition that WaverlyR does the same. I trust you and Noroton to do it justice. Burks88 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Someone will have to convey the offer to him/her, as he/she long since started ignoring any queries I make to him/her, however well-intended. Burks88 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell WaverlyR that, get them to agree, and drop Noroton a line as well. It would be helpful if you could also give a list of reliable sources you feel are relevant to the series at the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 00:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: I haven't argued for removing negative reviews that are properly cited and have stayed out of the current debate over the Houston Cougar, Salt Hill, and Weekly Standard pieces. I'm interested in the outcome of BLP discussion and if it finds they should stay in, so be it. I'm sure we'll get guidance for the future. Reading through these I'm reminded of W.H. Auden's observation that "attacking bad books is not only a waste of time but also bad for the character. If I find a book really bad," he wrote, "the only interest I can derive from writing about it has to come from myself, from such display of intelligence, wit and malice as I can contrive. One cannot review a bad book without showing off."

Also, I'm not arguing to remove the spouse info (I introduced the info about 3 of the 4) but consider that given the lengths that Burks88 had to go through to find a reliable source for the Harwood Lehman marriage, one might wonder if Muldoon knew about it when he selected Harwood's poem. One couldn't make the same case for Hall, Gluck, and Hass.

As for the list of journals, I believe it belongs among the "facts" sections. However, I do think it would look better, read better, be more valuable if the font size were smaller and if the list was single-spaced. My html skills are rusty but if someone knows how to make that change, I'm for it. WaverlyR 12:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion, I think the best thing to do is for us all to wait for the WP:CEM to go through. If that doesn't work out for whatever reason, please drop me a Noroton a line on our talk pages and we can move from there. Sdedeo (tips) 16:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACLU

Sorry - the interview was on Thursday; I'll let you know when I have it up, though. Thanks for the interest. --David Shankbone 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]