Thanks! Don't know if I'm "active" again, but I had some maintenance to do that required logging in, so I thought I'd clean up some stuff while I was here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.
Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.
G'day,
I am interested in why the APANA wikipedia page was deleted. Can you explain that part of the process and your involvement.
Thanks
Martin Bull
APANA South Australia.
martin@ching.apana.org.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.0.99 (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by DustFormsWords - Hi Martin,
I have forwarded the following text to you by email:
Hi Martin,
Thank you for your query regarding APANA's Wikipedia page.
Please note that I am not a Wikipedia administrator, nor am I the person who made the final call to delete this page, nor am I the person who listed it for deletion.
However:
(b) The main criteria for inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia is that it is notable.
Wikipedia's policy on notability can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N
(c) Wikipedia's notability policy can be summarised as follows:
A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.
"Significant coverage" means discussion of the topic in enough detail for editors to create a substantive Wikipedia article out of the content.
"Reliable" means, largely, "with a well-known reputation of being generally accurate or subject to responsible editorial oversight".
"Independent" means "not owned, operated or affiliated with the topic, and with no obvious vested interest in or bias towards the topic".
Generally these requirements are met by citing at least two news reports about the topic that are more than mere passing mentions.
(d) The general notability criteria are explained and expanded by several subserviant criteria, including specific criteria for organisations found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ORG
(e) My argument that the article should be deleted was based upon the fact it did not contain any reference to significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and my independent Google searches to find such sources were unsuccessful.
(f) You are welcome to recreate the APANA article if you feel the topic satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria, but to avoid it being immediately deleted you should make sure to support the facts in the article by reference to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, as detailed above. If you are unsure how to do this, please contact an editor for help. You are welcome to send through your proposed article to me by email and I'll handle the format if it's not too taxing (although I'm not a final arbiter on this - if you don't get a reply or if I'm not helpful feel free to proceed on your own).
Best wishes,
DustFormsWords
Stanley Kaplan
After arguing Delete at an AfD for "Stanley Kaplan (entrapraneur)", I assisted the creator of that article (Csbruggers) to improve a userfied version of that article to bring it closer to Wikipedia standards.
I just noticed you made some edits to my article. I appreciate the help, thank you. Instead of the google links how should I demonstrate his name on the original patents? Can I link to the patent office website directly? Csbruggers (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You should include a line in the article along the lines of "On 18 June 1967 Kaplan filed a patent for a customised whatsit." and then immediately follow it with a link to the patent (or its citation details, if offline) as an inline citation. WP:CITE provides everything you need to know on how to do appropriate inline citations. If you have a go, and then let me know, I'll go over it and fix anything you got wrong. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional characters on the Hollywood Walk of Fame AFD
I've run into TeleCom in the past. The two of us have a history, starting at SEWP where he repeatedly WikiHounded me. After he was blocked on SEWP, he did a bit of WikiHounding here, such as removing stub tags on articles I created (he removed an LA-stub tag on an article about a candidate for mayor of LA) and repeatedly making bad image rename requests on an image I uploaded. TeleCom also has a long, well-documented history of making ill-considered deletion requests. I'm personally more inclined that it was made to pull my nose more than in error. But that's just me. Purplebackpack8906:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be but I'm inclined to assume good faith, especially as his immediate edit history indicates a wide range of complex but apparently constructive edits across the rest of Wikipedia. But thank you for the background. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
A selection of lists based on ethnicity/profession intersections were nominated for AfD by User:Bulldog123 and others. I commented on some of these, as did User:Epeefleche.
I received an email from User:Epeefleche inviting me to participate in a selection of ethnic list AfDs. I disclosed that I had received this email, which led to allegations that Epeefleche had canvassed in relation to these AfDs.
First of all, I would like to thank you for your honesty in disclosing the email you got from Epeefleche, after you had voted Keep on one AfD, soliciting you to take part in a similar one where he has also been working for a Keep consensus. Second, I want to mention that I referenced that email in the discussion ongoing at [1]. betsythedevine (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the following comment at User:Bulldog123's talk page. He responded here, as below.
Hi Bulldog123. As you were a chief complainant in the recent discussion of canvassing at list AfDs, I am sure you are well aware of Wikipedia's policy on canvassing. You would therefore know that selectively inviting other users to AfDs on the basis that you believe they will support your position (as you appear to have done here) is very strongly against Wikipedia policy. Would you care to explain that diff? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That comment sort of legitimizes that you, as well as many others, still don't fully understanding what canvassing is. It's also interesting how you neglect to see diffs like this [2]. If you consider that canvassing (which - grab an admin - anyone can tell you is not), I'm surprised you haven't sent the equivalent message to User:Mbz1. Perhaps because they're in agreement with you? Bulldog12300:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't seen those comments, and the possibility you might be able to provide something similar is why I asked for an explanation rather than taking it to AN:I. I'm still not convinced that your conversation with Jayjg doesn't run afoul of the canvassing policy - it's an attempted non-public collusion with another editor to ensure the deletion of several articles, including a specific request for him to be more active in supporting your arguments. I'm not going to take it further, but I'd point out that those who are going to throw stones should take the greatest steps possible to avoid the appearance of living in glass houses. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not living in a glass house. List of Jewish Nobel laureates was nominated after a discussion here, where several people voiced the opinion that it should be either totally revamped or deleted. Do you consider that canvassing too? At first I believed you were - at least - somewhat neutral in your stance toward theses nomination -- but these attempts to "catch me in a contradiction" are really just coming off as trolling. I'm hoping that's not what it is, because I still believe your opinion is one of the few that isn't agenda-driven. Bulldog12300:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're well aware of the difference between a discussion on the talk page of an article, and an invitation on an editor's talk page to participate in another AfD. You invited Jayjg to particpate in the List of British Jewish actors AfD, but you didn't also pass on that invitation to User:Gladsmile or User:Avenue, who were against you in the earlier talk page discussion. Likewise you didn't notify User:Betsythedevine or User:Therexbanner, who had specifically suggested you not make any more such AfD nominations until things had calmed down. I'm not trying to make a personal attack here. I came across this while trying to find evidence to defend you against an allegation that your AfD nominations were based on anti-Semitism, which I still feel there's no evidence of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm officially confused now.
You invited Jayjg to particpate in the List of British Jewish actors AfD
Likewise you didn't notify User:Betsythedevine or User:Therexbanner, who had specifically suggested you not make any more such AfD nominations until things had calmed down.
Notify of what? And where did they say that?
but you didn't also pass on that invitation to User:Gladsmile... who were against you in the earlier talk page discussion.
Gladsmile was not against me in the discussion. Diff?
I came across this while trying to find evidence to defend you against an allegation that your AfD nominations were based on anti-Semitism
Well, thanks for your support I guess, but there's no need to even respond to those types of outrageous comments. It's an alternative take on Godwin's Law - in lieu of actually having an argument. Bulldog12301:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an ANI case, I've raised my concerns, you've heard them, and I'd prefer to spend my time finding sources for AfDs than finding diffs for an unproductive attack on you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm just saying I honestly don't know what you're talking about and I think you're getting the wrong impression here. If you believe there's an underground movement to delete this lists, you're wrong. However, there was (and still is) evidence of an underground movement to vote-stack these types of AfDs whenever they show up (which is one of the reasons why they show up so often), and I'll gladly show you evidence of that once these AfDs close. Bulldog12301:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - Wikipedia page views as evidence of notability
The following is a continuation of a discussion at AfD, where User:Epeefleche suggested that a topic was notable because the Wikipedia article on it had received 200 page views a day. I replied that page views were not evidence of notability.
Point well taken, but at the same time it is a bit of apples and oranges to my mind. A blog usually has new material of interest a day or a week later. The list -- not so much. So a blog can be expected to have many more repeat visitors over the course of a week. If a list is getting 200 hits every day for a week, it is unlikely that many of them are repeat visitors. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reasons hits to a Wikipedia page don't show notability, including the fact that the Google search algorithm prioritises all pages within the Wikipedia domain, that a link from another site (say, from a piece about "Stupid Wikipedia pages") can disproportionately drive traffic, and that contentious pages (as this one is) are regularly visited by Wikipedia editors involved in the dispute multiple times per day, driving page hits without showing notability. The only relevant standard for notability on Wikipedia is the one outlined at WP:N and its subordinate policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This relates to the article Delphine LaLaurie that I have worked on. I asked User:Mikedash if he had a copy of a source he had used in improving the article that I could see.
Thanks for the message. Yes, I do have a copy of this book. Let me have an email and I will be glad to send you scans.
As you have probably noticed, I am the person responsible for referencing the great majority of the LaLaurie article. I got interested in the story after stumbling across one of the more lurid versions of it and being amazed that, if all was as it was said to be, the case was not substantially better known. Being an historian, and spending a lot of time at the British Library, I had the opportunity to research it properly, so in fact I have a large file of copies of all the relevant source material in addition to copies of some of the key books. So far as I can see (and I've read everything I can lay my hands on), DeLavigne is the person who first made many of the most significant allegations concerning torture and sadism. There is nothing in her book to indicate whether she simply made the material up herself, or lifted it from an unattributed source. The book is pretty gory overall, though, for a publication of the 1940s. Mikedash (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mike! The "Email this user" link in the Toolbox on the left when you're looking at this page will work, and has the added advantage of my address not becoming searchable on the web. I'd forgotten that you were the hero who dug up the Queen Bee and others! I've been hoping to help tidy the LaLaurie article in the near future and a look at some of the sources would be a pretty essential start, even if only to help in appropriately protecting the page from vandalism. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll send you something tonight (UK time). I should have added that DeLavigne does say, in a brief preface, that "old newspaper accounts, interviews and neighborhood hearsay have been the sources of the tales," which is not especially encouraging. There are no notes or references, or even a bibliography, in her book, and large portions of it, such as exchanges of dialogue, are clearly invented.Mikedash (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DustFormsWords. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'm sure I'll discover in the next few minutes that you're actually a POV-pushing troll who operates several sockfarms, but such are the risks that come with greeting strangers! —Emufarmers(T/C)02:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Desk - Entertainment - Audio effects on Kim Possible
This discussion relates to a question I answered on the Reference Desk about audio effects applied to character voices in Kim Possible. My answer directed the questioner to our articles on voice effects; he replies here.
Here are links to the episodes i mention, closest to the voice synthesis i mention. I don't knwo which of the items you mentioned to me would be what i am looking for, but here are the links, do your best. Queen Bebe (the bebes), [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT2N2KJuvI Car Trouble (sadie or the blender), and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQvnSAK_53k&feature=related a sich in time part 3 future (Robo duff or security drone). Note that Robo duff and the Security drone have the same synthesis as the bebes. Remember, i need a description of the voice effect for the bebes, Sadie, Blender, and Robo Duff or Security Drone. Thanks, I may not be able to find your talk page again thoughN.I.M. (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message, but I'm not really interested in watching a bunch of Kim Possible in the hope of identifying an audio effect. Best of luck though. (This message has also been left on your talk page.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following are messages left by Mikedash as part of an ongoing discussion about sourcing for the Delphine LaLaurie article, particularly a claim that the New Orleans Bee of 16 April 1834 contained an article relevant to Madame LaLaurie. The other half of the discussion took place on Mikedash's talk page.
I proposed this article for deletion, and subsequently (unsuccessfully) took it to AfD.
Not on my watch. We're not talking about an article on a dinky little dirt or gravel road in a hick town nobody but a few local yokels recognizes. This is a for a relativley suburban county, and I'm not letting you trash it! ----DanTD (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report.
Highlights
Membership grows to 503 editors
2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives
