User talk:Trebor/archive4

Jakob Dylan

Thanks for your support on the Jakob Dylan dispute. Once we find out the outcome of the AfD and Sockpuppetry reviews, we can likely come back and ask for it to be unprotected. Daffidd (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, although I'm not supporting either version, just preventing edit warring. Hopefully the dispute can be resolved quickly. If you want non-controversial edits to be made to the page in the mean time, add Template:Editprotected to the talk page along with a description of the edit. Trebor (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I understand you're not taking sides. I just appreciate taking a rest on the back and forth edits. Once we know which way it goes on the AfD it will help in making a decision when to unprotect. The offending user has been banned for 12 hours as well, so we'll give it a few days. I'm a newbie so thanks for the direction on what to do next!

Daffidd (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for noticing the problems with the Jacob Dylan page and associated pages. Hopefully some (more) credible references will be dug up before long, or this whole thing exposed as a hoax. Bigmouth strikes (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. The offending user and his socks have been blocked indefinitely and the hoax article deleted and salted.There's been absolutely no discussion on the talk page since those users were banned, so I think it's safe to unblock the Jakob Dylan article now. Are you able to do that, or should we go a different route? I'm not sure how the process works.

Daffidd (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

that weirdo tranny

What correlation is there between x amount of citations and uncited content? If i have 90 references for 15 out of 20 statements but none for the rest, the rest still need citations. There is an error in your logic. I have mentioned it on the talk page. I could give additional information if necessary, however I believe it it pretty obvious what needs to be done. Here's my line. In general the article's tone is very unencyclopedic, it is full of useless trivia, a lot of content is inserted repetitiously. its not a good read at all. basically. its a bad article. lets improve it. if it must exist.Myheartinchile (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And, as has been said on the talk page, all you're doing is saying the article is uncited without giving a single specific example. It's far from obvious what you think needs to be done. If you think the article has problems, state what they are (as in specifically, not general sweeping comments) and what should be done to correct them. If you get consensus for your changes then you can implement them. Don't just disruptively add tags. Trebor (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Big Brown Edits

I logged in to correct some posts I made yesterday. Track attendance reported by ABC pre-race was in error, the corrected amount is 94,476. Also I wanted to post total wagers were $13,233,071 at the track for the day, the second highest number recorded, but was still less than the $14,461,402 bet during Smarty Jones appearance in 2004 [1].

Thread is locked and I am listed as a new member so I can't get in. Eedlee (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a response at least? Eedlee (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The article was semi-protected in response to vandalism following the race. Until your account is autoconfirmed (4 days old and at least 10 edits) you can ask others to make the change for you on the article's talk page. Trebor (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Korax1214

Requesting unblock and claiming he's not a sock. Who's the puppeteer, and what's the evidence? Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The puppeteer is User:CanuckAnthropologist who was banned yesterday for repeated disruptive editing. The relation to Korax was raised on ANI and upon review of the evidence (supported by User:LessHeard_vanU) I found it likely they were the same user. Evidence includes the restarting of editing after a (admittedly short) break soon after CA was block and the moves of similar pages (those starting Afro-) against general consensus. If you disagree, feel free to overturn or go to WP:RFCU. Trebor (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you've said "feel free to overturn," I'm overturning. There is a lot more difference than similarity here. The page moves you were worried about: Korax's moves, though undiscussed, all gave edit summaries citing policy, whereas CanuckAnthropologist's page moves were much weirder and more poorly justified, and less systematic. Also, those moves were a long time ago (April), not a continuation of the behavior right before the block. Finally, CA seems to be obsessed with Blondes and Blonde-related articles whereas I see no evidence of this interest in Korax at all. (Also, please be aware that sockpuppetry blocks are very often contested and it's really really important that you at least mention the puppetmaster you suspect in your block summary.) Mangojuice^talk 14:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, my mistake in the summary. Moves of the same page were made on the 1 June by CA (as well as back in April), and then 8 June by Korax. They also both shared a propensity to put words in bold for emphasis [2] [3] [4] [5] and often make multiple edits for one talk page comment (adding sentences or fixing mistakes). They also both used wikilinks in their edit summaries for page moves. It's not conclusive, but myself and several others find it suspiciously similar (along with asking for a reduction to a month block while claiming total innocence). Trebor (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

Perhaps you could explain to me a confusion I am having over diffs. On the issue in question yesterday, I was copy editing a FAC article when I noticed something strange. So I look in the history, saw the drive-by edit, and compared that diff with the next one. I have always assumed that the parts in red letters and symbols in the older diff were the parts added or removed by that editor (more or less - I know I am not explaining this very well). You are saying that is not the correct interpretation? The diff you provided was not the one I saw at the time. I voted in the RFA because, once I saw the diff which I saw as disruptive, I checked h his contributions for more disruptive diffs and saw he was running for admin.

Do you think that looking at the diffs by going through the article provides a different view than looking at diffs via a user's contributions? I really cannot account for the changing appearance of the diffs. Do you have any advice on how to examine diffs correctly? Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the bits in red letters do indicate the changed bits from one diff to another. You somehow ended up looking at the wrong diff this one, which is User:Wizardman removing the IMDB reference for Brewer's name - it doesn't show anything about Epbr123's contribution. To see what was done in a particular edit, go to the history page, find the edit you want to look at, and on the left-hand side click the "last" button. That will show the alterations made by that editor in that edit. So if you find Epbr123's edit, click "last" and have a look, you can see the difference. Trebor (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I see what you mean. I apologize. I was under stress in editing the FAC Rongorongo and when I saw what had been done to the numbers in the beginning of the sentence [6] (using your method) I became very discourage and then angry. That sort of edit makes me feel like I am going crazy thinking that I had overlooked that error. I have taken Wikipedia and its accuracy far too seriously. I need to increase frivolous editing like those editors do with their automatic toys. Don't take it to heart, right? Thanks for your help. Best, –Mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. I withdrew the RFA. The comments are appreciated and I will try to work on all of the concerns. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the truth matter to you?

You blocked me a couple days ago based on what I think you ought to have been able to determine with just a little effort was inaccurate evidence. I'd like for you not to do things like that in the future, but I don't plan on wasting any effort on you if you are uninterested in improving yourself. So, does the truth matter to you? Tegwarrior (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What was inaccurate? Trebor (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Trebor:

1. User:Beit Or indicated this diff as an example of a reversion/warning about one of my edits. In fact, I accepted uninvolved editor Jossi's comment, and never restored the comment in question. Also, Jossi implicitly accepted the move to David Littman (human rights activist), which was the name of the article at the time he looked at it.

2. User:Beit Or indicated this diff as an example of a warning to me about my edits. In the diff, which is a comment from User:Beit Or to my talk page, she claimed, "At least two editors (Canadian Monkey and myself) object to your moving the article from David Littman (historian) to David Littman (human rights activist)." This is patently false, as indicated at [7], where User:Canadian Monkey specifically says, "I am not opposed to the renaming of the article to David Littman (human rights activist)."

Thus, at the David Littman article, we have three editors - myself, Canadian Monkey, and Jossi - accepting that "David Littman (human rights activist)" is at least as good a name for the article as "David Littman (historian);" Beit Or was, as far as I can tell, on her own in insisting on the latter title when she reverted to it. I would also encourage you to take a brief look at the facts of this individual's life: he has worked as a human rights activist at the UN Commission on Human Rights, with which he has a long list of presentations on matters primarily about human rights in Muslim countries and in Sub-Saharan Africa. See his web page for more. As far as being a historian goes, almost all of his publications are in vanity presses or in very marginal or polemical journals. The only clear exception I could see was a publication in Les Temps Modernes; he has a number of publications on human rights issues as opposed to history in more mainstream journals, but as far as his historical writings go, he is probably only marginally notable at best. (I don't expect you to have done enough research to verify that in following up on User:Beit Or's complaint, but still I think it is informative).

3. User:Beit Or also points to the article on Bat Ye'or, and insists that she be accepted as a "historian" because reliable sources (one of which, in the same breath, mistook her nationality) have called her such. In fact, two reliable sources have called her a historian, but many more others have called her "scholar" or "writer," specifically avoiding the term "historian." If you look at Talk:Bat Ye'or, you will see that there was an open discussion about the matter of whether Bat Ye'or should be called a historian. I gave specific reasons why I thought she should not be so-called, and invited User:Canadian Monkey to offer something that would address my concerns while maintaining whatever considerations he thought made it appropriate to call her "historian;" he never offered an answer. I then suggested a solution of my own, and asked him if it would be acceptable; he retreated to an insistence that we defer to two reliable sources out of eight, and never sought to address my concerns. Then, after over a week of waiting for him to respond to specific questions on the talk page, I made my changes, and User:Canadian Monkey, who had abandoned discussion, reverted them. You might also note that the other participant in the discussion, User:Itsmejudith, thought she shouldn't even be called "scholar" but only "writer."

So, given that it takes at least two sides to edit war, I have to wonder why I, who had not abandoned discussion at Bat Ye'or and who had a consensus for my renaming of David Littman (historian), was singled out for restrictions? Is it only that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and if so, do you think that's an appropriate or practical way to write an encyclopedia?

Tegwarrior (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't mispresent the facts. There was no consensus for renaming Littman - Canadian Monkey said he wasn't opposed if there was consensus, and Jossi made no comment (which does not mean implicit support in the slightest). For Bat Ye'or, the discussion was good and trying to change it after a break in discussion was alright, but once you were reverted you should've gone to talk again (if you felt they hadn't responded satisfactorily, tell them on their user talk page). Read bold, revert, discuss - if your attempted changes are reverted, you discuss them and don't change it again unless there is consensus. No, none of the involved editors behaved perfectly but your edits were persistently disruptive and strayed into BLP concerns (also, self-reverting to avoid WP:3RR but then reverting again an hour later is gaming the system). I am not commmenting on the content issue other than to say you need to take utmost care when living people are involved, particularly if your changes could reflect negatively upon them (as yours might be). In terms of moving forward, I suggest making a request for comment to get other editors' opinions on the issue. Trebor (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I need to know. Thanks. Tegwarrior (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

I see you were listed as a participant in the League of Copy-Editors so it seems likely. The thing is the Military history wikiproject urgently needs prose pros to help with our best articles. Milhist covers a broad range of interesting and varied subjects from film to biography, battles to weaponry, and Roman emperors to twentieth-century dictators. In Milhist, A-Class has become the last port of call before FAC and we are looking for people to help identify prose and MoS issues at A-Class A-Class Reviews and help fix them prior to featured article candidacy. We also have a copy-editing section in our Logistics Dept and that can always use experienced copy-editors. For most of our articles, you don't need to be a specialist in the subject matter, just good with words.

If you think you can help, please do! Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:101 Dalmations II.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:101 Dalmations II.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in Malaysia

This article, List of shopping malls in Malaysia, has been re-listed for deletion. Please feel free to comment as you were engaged in the original deletion debate. Thanks, JBsupreme (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Barbara West

I was surprised you removed this text [8]. While the notability may be arguable, how is POV a problem? According to WP:NPOV:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

In this case, the POV was attributed to those who were offering the criticism which fits neatly into Wikipedia policy. Since you are an administrator, I know I shouldn't lecture you on policy and am looking for guidance on what POV basis this was excluded? This issue has gone through a (thankfully now quieted) edit war yesterday and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. (I'll look for your answer here). ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss it on the article talk page. Regards Trebor (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Jewellery Channel

• 11:19, 6 June 2008 Trebor protected The Jewellery Channel ‎ (Edit warring [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was 16 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I have started at talk:The Jewellery Channel. --TS 10:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Mayall FAC

Hello Trebor,

I'd love to get your copy edit help on the FAC for the astronomer Nicholas Mayall. If you have some time, please come take a look and make any improvements you can.

Thanks.

WilliamKF (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sid Barnes

Hello. Thanks for your time. I have responded YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Review of Ronnie Lee Gardner

Thank you very much for reviewing this article. I have posted responses to your recommendations. I would like to know if the article's lead reads more smoothly now. KimChee (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Again, thank you very much for commenting during this article's FA review. However, the current state of the article is still being challenged — I would like to know if you could do me a very big favor and act as an objective third party to do a quick copyedit pass to address some remaining objections? Any of your time would be greatly appreciated! KimChee (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to have a go tomorrow depending on how busy I am. Trebor (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks once again for your vote of support. I do have to admit the process has been tough, but it has been a good learning experience. KimChee (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Dpt bang bang.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:Dpt bang bang.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please Don't Remove Edits That Have Citations as You Did in the Sorkin Article

If you didn't like the wording of one sentence, that did not justify your removing an entire paragraph with multiple citations.

Also you should be looking a little more deeply into situations before intervening--

The username of the chief person complaining about the "controversy" section and "NPOV" over there has the username "Thtr_wrtr" (Theater writer). Such a username could very well be there for a networking opportunity as Sorkin himself is a famous theater writer-- (I'm not italicizing in anger but I am trying to get this point across to you. Self-serving networkers are just as bad as sock-puppets on Wikipedia).

So who is it that has the NPOV problem, is it me or is it the accuser (Username "Theater writer", defending another famous theater writer) who is really the offender?

In any case, removing multiple passages with citations is inappropriate. And on the other hand, "controversy" sections, especially with citations, are very appropriate for Wikipedia.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing paragraphs with citations can be entirely appropriate in some situations - the issue here is not verifiability, it's neutral point of view (with a particular focus on undue weight). Just because accusations have been made doesn't necessarily mean they are important or notable enough to go in the article. Particularly in a BLP, we need to be very careful when we include negative statements about people. Your additions are clearly controversial, so they should remain out of the article until a consensus has been established on the talk page. Finally, ad hominem attacks aren't going to be effective - argue the case on its merits, not because you think other people have a hidden agenda. Regards, Trebor (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of Trebor's points are well made. I would also note to 98.245.148.9 that "ThtrWrtr," if indeed it identifies anything more than one's WP interests, might identify a vocation (or avocation) as a theorist, historian, professor, blogger, reviewer, dramaturg, or critic, not just the playwrights and screenwriters whose motives 98.245.148.9 appears to find suspicious. ThtrWrtr (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Discuss the content (not the motives) on the article talk page, and if you need a wider input submit a request for comment. I don't particularly want to get involved other than to say the controversy section (as it was previously written) was unacceptable. Trebor (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Double Standard

The citations you removed were from major news sources.

You also accused me of not being neutral (impugning my motives) and then told me I shouldn't make any assumptions about anyone elses motives.

Please don't vandalize my edits, they were backed by citations from major news sources. If you didn't like the wording of one sentence you should not have vandalized the entire paragraph.

One more question for you--

Have you ever admitted you were wrong on Wikipedia? Do you ever think it's OK to do that? I'd like to know.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're not trying to be neutral, but I feel strongly the edits you made were not representing a neutral point of view (these are not hugely notable criticisms, and certainly don't merit two paragraphs in their own section). I did not vandalize your edits. As I said, these are controversial edits - people disagree with you on them - therefore the appropriate thing to do is to establish a consensus on the talk page before adding them (see also the BRD cycle). Trebor (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are major media sources, major nationally known magazines. You have done sock-puppet checks before (it says higher up on your page). Can we do a sock-puppet check on the guy whose username is a contraction of "Theater writer"? How do we do that?

Not telling the truth about a living human being isn't notable? Are you sure?

That's the allegation, that Sorkin didn't tell the truth about a living person.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but there are plenty of other things written about Sorkin which aren't included in the article. It's about balance. I'm not saying that nothing should be included about it - I'd need to read more widely around the topic to be sure - but your initial controversy section was much too much. It gave a fairly minor story about Sorkin a huge amount of weight in an otherwise reasonably balanced article - this is misleading to our readers. Sockpuppet checks are when two usernames are believed to be controlled by the same person - not appropriate in this case. Your concern seems to be about conflict of interest; however, the evidence is pretty thin - his name being a contraction of "theatre writer" doesn't really mean anything. Trebor (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your point that "Not telling the truth about a living human being isn't notable" - Wikipedia editors don't judge notability directly. That would be subject to inherent bias. Notability is judged by extent and depth of coverage in sources, and by that measure this story is relatively minor. Trebor (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Not notable? The New Yorker and also New York Magazine are major news magazines.

But wait here are more articles discussing the same thing--

• The Associated Press
• More from the The Yorker
• The Atlantic
• The LA Examiner
• Washington Post
• Chicago now (owned by the Chicago Tribune)
• Denver Post
• The Denver post says " 'The Social Network' premiered amid great discussion about its accuracy.... Hmmmm, "great discussion" not notable?

(I tried posting the links here but Wikipedia blocked them).

But you can just do a search on "Sorkin, accuracy" and add the name of any major newspaper.

There are many, many articles...

I'm hitting 100% by the way, EVERY newspaper article about the movie that I have searched mentions the controversy.

Yeah, it's notable....

98.245.148.9 (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. (When searching) Add the name of the Newspaper next to "Sorkin" and "accuracy" (otherwise you just get blogs).

Do that for any major newspaper and its in the article.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You're not responding to what I'm writing. I'm not saying that the inaccuracies weren't mentioned, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be included in the article to some extent; I'm saying that in the wider context of an article about a writer who has written an awful lot of different things, it's not a massive deal. It might merit a sentence, but you have to be careful about giving it undue weight given the article is about Sorkin, not just The Social Network. Please try to respond to my points, rather than repeating your same claims. Regards, Trebor (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, with Aaron Sorkin being a featured article, users will expect a higher level of accuracy, and be more inclined to believe that everything in it is fair and true. Given it refers to the life of a living person (see WP:BLP), we have to be extra careful with what we include when it is negative. Believe me, I can understand what you're saying, and I think your points have plenty of merit; I'm just requesting that you discuss changes on the talk page and establish some consensus before you make your edits. Thanks, Trebor (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

No problem, even I would accept that I don't always make the most subtle and nuanced decisions, (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

CSI effect

Seasons greetings! Many thanks for your support and feedback for CSI effect. I played around with the Forensic science section to try to make it seem less "bitty". If you have a moment to take a second look at it and let me know what you think, I would greatly appreciate it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a read once you changed it, and thought it was fine. I'll strike out my comments on the FAC just to be sure. Good luck with the rest of the nom. Trebor (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)