This is an archive of past discussions with User:Milowent. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Regarding the article on Prairie State Winery you're of course in your full right to de-PROD it, and make me AfD it instead. I just want to say that I find the argument "article has sourcing" doesn't really have any bearing on WP:N and "cites proposed guidelines and essay" fairly unconvincing, since they are not just made up, but very well worked through, and fully based on established guidelines in combination with a lot of subject matter knowledge. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
My views behind that deprodding are probably made evident by my most recent contribution to the DRV of Valhalla at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_6. My apologies for not going into more depth in my deprodding comment. I do believe things should only be deprodded if they are clearly notable, or where notability is in significant enough question that an AfD is the better way to get a definitive answer.--Milowent (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"Chaddsford Winery"
Hi there. I hope you don't mind, but I tagged your accidentally-created redirect "Chaddsford Winery" for deletion, because it's an implausible typo that probably doesn't need a redirect. Based off your edit summary, it seemed like you agreed. Let me know if there's any problem with that and I'll be glad to reconsider it. Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Milowent, I appreciate your work on this article but I've decided to nominate it for deletion (here) for the reasons I expressed at the author's talk. Just FYI, though I assume you were watching the page anyway. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Valhalla Vineyards DRV
Truly I was hoping to avoid a DRV. I asked the closing admin to userfy the article for me and he started giving me a hard time insisting that I take it to DRV if I disagreed. I figured it was at least worth stowing away until it could be improved or more good sourcing emerged (although I find the sourcing that already exists is plenty to establish notability).
Oh well. I wouldn't spend too much time on it. There seems to be some kind of passionate ownership over the subject of wineries at work. A merge or even a redirect that preserved the history would be okay by me (although not as desirable as a restored article). The arguments that someone will simply recreate the article seem pretty silly. Since when do we delete or salt things just so no one can restore something down the road?
Anyway, I did enjoy reading your blog. There are some pretty crazy decisions here, but whatever. :) Take care. Happy New Year. Oh and your arguments make sense, but ultimately it will be decided how it's decided. The discussion is getting to be too long to read, again, which looks like a good indication of no consensus to me, but what do I know. There are a lot of egos at work on Wikipedia and pride seems to get in the way of commons sense sometimes. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia and to feature article subjects that are lost in the shuffle. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
NYT
I appreciate your edits to the article, but you should know that another users has substantially modified your version and you might want to take another look. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nassau Valley Vineyards, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It is the EXACT same thing as book burning, the question is whether and when its ever justified. This deletion blitz is pathetic! 95% of BLPs present no problems, and some are using a jackhammer to correct it.--Milowent (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron.
This barnstar is awarded to Milowent for his courageous saving of several articles which were disruptively deleted. You are a real asset to the project. Ikip08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Make sure to give other editors who have saved articles this barnstar:
{{subst:The Rescue Barnstar 3|message ~~~~}}
The Olympic Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored: an olympic medallist for fuck's sake) was priceless. I will either add it to my talk page, or even make it into a signature. Thank you. Ikip08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad you liked that one too. If you actually look at what's being deleted, you can see some of the major harm being caused, without any recognizable benefit.--Milowent (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
PCPRO: "It seems Wikipedia has completed the journey by arriving at an online equivalent of the midnight door-knock and the book bonfire" Ikip10:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I created that article. I have that book in the other room. I'm an editor of a magazine IRL so I don't know when I can get it to you, but I will try by the end of the week! Mike H.Fierce!09:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you and sorry for doubting
Several entries above is my request for your opinion on an article. I did not see that you had commented on it within its talk pages, and in a subsequent conversation I stated how "you never responded to my inquiry". I apologize for that, sorry for doubting you, and thank you for your advice. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Adding references to reliable sources, such as mainstream news services or government databases, is very valuable and important work. I was surprised the Google translate worked well enough Serbian to English to allow me to confirm sourcing of the one article for which I removed the "unsourced" tag. So if you have added multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of a BLP, the notability of the subject is confirmed. Even one such source should justify removing the "unsourced" tag. Naturally someone's personal blog, IMDB, or Myspace would not be enough.I am also going over the category "unsourced BLP" starting with the oldest, and attempting to source them or to remove "unsourced" tags if someone else has added good references, since there is a move afoot to robodelete old unsourced BLPs. That will actually improve the encyclopedia by removing some vanity articles which lack any reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, and which fail both verifiability and notability. Great work! Edison (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
bad bad milowent
A note about civility
Please be careful to be civil to people whose actions you disagree with, such as User:Unitanode. In other words, don't call him Unitatroll, even when he starts an AfD that you disagree with. I encounter lots of AfDs that should never have been started, and I prefer to deal with them by adding "Keep. I added some references." rather than by name-calling. Please continue your good work finding and adding sources, but don't get yourself blocked for incivility. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind note and surely good advice. User:Unitanode dishes it out liberally, so hopefully he can take a little ribbing himself. Maybe I should go out and delete 500 articles, and the wikigods will praise me.--Milowent (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It is often better not to comment on another editors inadequacies. Your retorts can be misunderstood and easily used against you. If not now, maybe in the future. Speaking ones mind can escalate and detonate banter →→into expletives →→into on-going hostilities. Your future seems bright. Don't litter it with sediment.--Buster7 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't "dish it out", Milowent, whatever you may believe. You need to stop this commenting on other editors, and you need to stop it now. UnitAnode01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If you persist in your personal attacks against me, as you did here, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This type of thing is completely unacceptable. UnitAnode21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a great tag to be able to use. How does it function, as far as pulling the "earlier version" diff and all that? I'd like to be able to use it as a tool when I do stub a poorly-sourced article. Regards, UnitAnode02:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I might've figured it out. It's not actually a diff, but an old version number that is plugged into the template. I think this would really help both newer editors that aren't sure exactly how to use the history, as well as older editors who just want an easy way to find the information they're trying to source. Thanks! UnitAnode02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to let both of you know, the template's meant to go on the talk page, not the article page. I need to add some "nag" code to the template that says as much. If the documentation isn't clear, let me know, I'll rewrite it.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There are merits to both placements, but I ultimately decided the talk page was the more suitable location. One reason is that if we're actually trying to "hide" potentially harmful information, it's kind of dumb to say "click here to see all the removed stuff!" right at the top of the article. Another is that if it's left on the article page, it might linger for years and years, and eventually someone will remove it because of the first reason. It's meant to be for the benefit of editors, not readers, and editors will know (or learn) where to find it on the talk page.--Father Goose (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
According to the atticle given, it was the day before 2007-09-20 （从昨天起，）, so it should be 2007-09-19 when the name was changed.David290 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the barnstar. I know you are very supportive, but it is so wonderful to remember this when I am being so severely criticized, I am in your debt :)
If you care to take an active role on the contest, including taking it over, be my guest. I have been a rather polarizing figure and I think that my participation only hurts the potential for the contest.
You have to run the contest!!!! Remember you really are NOT a polarizing figure. You are only polarizing to a very small number of the most active wikipedia editors, and a very very very small fraction of casual+active editors. I remember seeing a comment that 201 people commented on the first round of the BLP RfC, that's a drop in a bucket.--Milowent (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Milowent. You have new messages at Ponyo's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The rules of the contest have been changed significantly since you signed up. Please check out the new page and its subpages. Any input as to how to improve any part of it would be greatly welcomed. J04n(talk page)02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I really appreciate it. I was under the impression that ALL editors were either far right Nazi types, or conciliatory Liberals --more interested in peace than truth.
You seem fair minded. I made a complaint against Chelydramat and MudskippermarkII--but would like to know (as I am a Wiki novice) did I take it to the right place? And how long before we see some action? The edit of the Gay Village page by MudskippermarkII should have been the end of it. Why has he been (so far) let off the hook for obviously intentional vandalism? I'm incredulous. If Wiki had called him on that, we wouldn't be dealing --at least with the same computer--now. Just curious if you know.... Thanks, again for restoring a little of my faith in Wiki.
Big Orange (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(Smiles.)
Big Orange (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Big Orange. ahhh, the place to make complaints like this would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but that can be a real dramapit and difficult for a novice to get relief at unless the violations are blatant, so read some other disputes there to get a sense for how it works. Typical edit disputes end up with admins telling everyone to calm down and just take up your time. I dug up your comment at that other board (which board I have never seen, and I don't know what it does really)("MudskippermarkII, and Chelydramat have been deleting sourced material (including AP stories) and inserting information that they (demonstrably) know to be lies into talk pages (see James O'Keefe entry). MudskippermarkII, in particular was "outed" as having defacing the entry on Gay Village in a way that should insure that she/he is blocked--not just by name, but computer ID. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gay_village&diff=prev&oldid=335669770 ). People often try to insert slanted materials into hot topic controversial bios (see, e.g., Glenn Beck's article history), they usually go away if others are vigilant during the hot time period.--Milowent (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between being "vigilant," as you say, and edit war? I was threatened by a number of folks about vowing to resubmit the AP citation/link RE: Okeefy's home confinement. Am I right that those removing a valid link were more at fault than I? (I was afraid to push it...but would love to put it back in...as I think it IS as newsworthy as Madoff's confinement prior to a guilty disposition. Am I right? Or wrong?
And, uh...if so, do you want to put it back--so that it's not me again?
That policy confuses me. I may be Liberal...but I consider myself a good enough Philosopher to be able to argue both sides of an issue--in an article (*discussion being different) without tipping my hand to an outsider. (And again, thanks.)
Big Orange (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference? You tell me! I just try to fend for myself assuming that getting admin intervention is difficult. As for the home confinement, I was fine with it being reported (not in the lede, but in the relevant section), but not making it silly like the original TPM and HuffPo posts did. Remember, O'Keefe is only a celebrity on FoxNews and internet blogs, he's a magnet for drama.--Milowent (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Rainbow Lodge
Because it looked like the same text was there twice. Like someone copy-pasted it cluelessly, leaving behind [1]s and [2]s instead of actual references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
I note the same regular suspects put this up for deletion, typically ignoring WP:BEFORE. *sigh*
The Article Rescue Barnstar
The Rescue Barnstar is awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron.
I had considered giving you a barnstar for your good efforts in this respect also, so I'm glad to see someone who isn't as lazy and self-centered as I am actually followed up. :) Good on you. And I enjoyed reading your blog. I'd like to know when there are new posts if that's possible, but I don't quite know how that would work or if you'd be comfortable dropping by a reminder. Anyway, take care of yourself and enjoy spring. The article still needs some sourcing work. I asked one Hungarian speaker to have a look, but notifying a couple others might help... Do we draw straws to see who gets to do it? Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks CoM (and that Okip guy too :-) ) -- I joined the hungarian wikipedia and posted on the talk page of "Zimmy" (he also has an account here) who contributed to the short discussion they had on Hitlerszalonna in 2008 on a talk page, hopefully he'll come by at some point. As for the blog[1], its very irregular posting, but I would be happy to let you know when its updated.--Milowent (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Habari is a bit of a special case. i am responsible for all four AfDs for it. after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) was closed with a keep i concluded that AfDs are a joke. WP:DEL says These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. WP:NOTVOTE elaborates. so what does the closing admin do in the second nomination? they do a straight up head count. three votes to keep, none of which are based in wikipedia policy. if the arguments presented in that AfD are to be believed - the arguments that resulted in a "keep" closure - then all non notable articles must be deleted simultaneously (regardless of how mammoth a task that would be) or none should be deleted, unreliable sources can be cited as justification for keeping an article (even if they couldn't actually be cited in the article per WP:RS) and some random award given away by sourceforge.net deserves its own wikipedia article because it's as notable as the Academy Awards (although i guess someone forgot to inform the tv executives of this since they don't air sourceforge.net awards on primetime tv). or maybe the lesson to learn is that if User:tusho thinks an articles subject is notable it obviously must be.
i initiated a deletion review and all the administrators that commented closed ranks in one of the worst demonstrates of rank and file i have ever seen on wikipedia. they said that the closing admin made the right call per WP:DEL but when confronted with statements from WP:DEL that contradicted them and that should have proved once and for all that the AfD should have been over turned all i got was silence. the wikipedia power structure is little more than a good 'ol boy network - a cabal if you will - and the more vehemently wikipedia denies it with things like WP:TINC the more wikipedia proves it exists.
maybe i would be more respectful in AfDs if the wikipedia power structure respected the rules and policies they created but since they do not neither do i. Misterdiscreet (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
i like your attitude. i would be willing to dismiss Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) as a fluke too were it not for the DRV outcome. everyone makes mistakes and every organization has there bad apples but in the DRV wikipedia defending there mistakes or bad apples. maybe i should let it go - i do think every other AfD i have participated in was reasonably decided based on the comments. i may not think that a lone WSJ citation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Dubose is enough to merit being called notable but the consensus of the AfD was that it was. i might renominate that one at some point in the future - or others - as consensus can change but i do not believe that in those the admin did simple vote counting. maybe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) upsets me so because its primary defender persisted in making such awful arguments. maybe i would have less of a problem with it if they had simply said I like it and left it at that. or maybe not - i do not know. Misterdiscreet (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
BLP sticky PROD
Hi Milowent/Archive 2!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sugar Shaker
So I really thought the rescue or citation barnstars would be appropriate since you saved saved an article for finding seemingly unattainable sources. But you already have those and this was an aricle on a prominent building that defines the skyline of a city. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
On March 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bikini Barista, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Ah, thanks for letting me know. I am pretty darn sure its the same guy, his behavior and argument style are identical. I tried to engage him in good faith on the article talk page, but he wasn't interested in that.--Milowent (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ventura Freeway discussion you might want to get in on
Hello! You might want to be aware of/or take part in the discussion at Talk:California State Route 134. It's about whether to eliminate the article about the Ventura Freeway by merging it into the two numbered highways (U.S. 101 and state route 34) that make it up.
Here's the background: The members of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads seem to have it as one of their rules that anything related to a numbered route has to be merged into the article about the numbered route. On March 27 one of them reduced the Ventura Freeway article (14,000 bytes) to a disambiguation page referencing highways 101 and 34, with the editorial comment "article not needed". Someone else reverted that change, saying "Notable topic. You need to gain consensus for such a major more." The original editor then AfD'ed the page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. That generated lively discussion, but when it appeared the consensus was moving toward "keep" the nominator withdrew the nomination, giving as the reason "This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though." Now someone has re-started the discussion on the talk page of the State Route 134 article and they are talking about a delete-and-merge again. Since you took part in the original discussion, I thought you might want to have some input at the relocated discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Segregated prom, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Heh, yeah, I made the article a while ago. I wanted to make it before any of the other fans got to it. The Vlogbrothers are amazing and I idolize them. SilverserenC06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest?
Hey Milowent. I did grow up in the area, and return frequently, but the name isn't ringing a bell. Didn't you say that you have contacts in Fulton yourself? I'm not sure what you mean by "strong personal attachment to the controversy!" but it doesn't sound benign. This is the second time you've hinted that I may be personally involved in the topic at hand, so I hope you aren't trying to make an underhanded swipe at my credibility. I'm going assume that you're shocked to see your comments could be construed that way and let the matter rest.
If you aren't, there are proper channels for COI issues, and I invite you to use them rather than to try to undermine my credibility.
I've never been to Fulton, I just sense that you are defending the area because you may be from there. I didn't intend to suggest you are really on the prom committee or something. Sorry bout that.--Milowent (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. But if I were the principal or the prom committee the girls would have gotten their tickets and you would have never heard of Fulton. Both bigotry and stupidity on the part of the adults were required to create this situation, and the ACLU was trolling for a few years before they found enough of both in Itawamba County for their test case. I don't deny that, that facts are irrefutable. I'd like to see a dignified, well-written article, not a whitewash, nor an attack piece. If I am hopelessly COI, well there are plenty of other editors that will more than balance me out. I'll see if I can be a bit less aggressive for a while. Geogene (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Done, though if there are actual sources to support a proper article, it might be worth adding them to the article — because as currently written, the article demonstrates no actual notability whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Milowent, I'd be interested in any counter arguments you may have on the Boba_Phat AfD. You had asked me to expand upon my thoughts as to why it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I'd love to continue the discussion, if you open to it. However, I completely understand if you are through with the discussion. It has been a difficult scenario all round for everyone. Hope to hear from you soon. Biohazard388 (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I will, perhaps I won't. The topic of the AfD is sublimely inane, so it may draw me back. I did read your comment and saw it as a slippery slope kinda thing but may chew on it more before responding.--Milowent (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. A whole bunch of all-new users all of a sudden finding out about AFD and vehemently recruiting a bunch of neighbors to !vote "delete" in their favor? I'm not buying it one bit. I cannot in any situation see how this is possibly a bunch of newbies finding this all out in short order, all this with respect to the almighty WP:BITE, of course. –MuZemike07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering that there were comments about "go ahead, check my IP" (surely something a new user would suggest!) I'm not shocked that the investigation ended without proving them to be socks. I guess they care mightly about boba phat.--Milowent (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot more specific information over at Jimbo's page on Commons. As is mentioned there, this is one example of a piece of art by a notable artist. I have also heard mention that there was a picture of breastfeeding that was deleted. If I was an admin, I could be more specific, but the images I remembered in the categories deleted (such as the Sexual Content category) were most definitely not just pornography. SilverserenC04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a few ill-advised deletions took place, so its good others are checking over Jimbo's acts. Like the Jan 2010 BLP purge, deletion discussions are better than unilateral deletions. Thanks for the information.--Milowent (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Except the deletion log for that piece of art, if you check, shows that Jimbo redeleted the image three times, after it was recreated by different admins (each time) who decided that it was artistic and thus didn't fit under the policy change for deletion. So much for what he stated he would do. SilverserenC05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
He's far from infallible, he must think that picture is dirty dirty dirty. I do know there were total porn stashes around wikipedia, not that I cared, but I guess wikimedia is worried about its corporate donors.--Milowent (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Neo-Birtherism
"Hey Truthful, you don't really personally believe in this neo-birthism silliness, do you? Its like the opposite side of the coin of Dan Rather and the fake National Guard memos"
I've made it quite clear I believe that Obama was likely born in Hawaii. As I defined neo-birtherism, it was the set of beliefs regarding whether he's hiding something in connection with his 1961 long-form Certificate of Live Birth (if it exists, as opposed to some other "vital record" such as an affidavit of a relative). In all the discussion of deletion, I didn't see a single one of my points actually addressed. You do find it remarkable the lengths that the networks, FactCheck and other mainstream outlets go to give the misimpression that the 2008 computer-generated form is the 1961 "original"? That Robert Gibbs, in mid-2009, said he didn't know the name of the hospital his boss was born in? That the hospital won't even confirm it? C'mon.
In the the Rather situation we were provided with documents (by a major network) which were forensically and conclusively proven to be fakes. With Obama, the contemporaneous authentic documents have been withheld. (I do not, btw, have much interest in the debate over whether the 2008 COLB posted online is authentic -- of course it is. That debate was originally started by Daily Kossers to distract from the real question regarding tbe existence of the 1961 certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I never got the misimpression that the 2008 document was the 1961 document, its obviously recent, and valid proof under Hawaii and federal law. I've understood that the director of the Hawaii State Department of Health has verified[2] the existence of the 1961 document, but the state cannot release it under State law. As for the deletion discussion, that was about whether the term "neo-birtherism" is supported by reliable sources, which it is not. That many shades of birthers exist is obvious to me. In the case of the Dan Rather flap, some libs were claiming for a long time that they were authentic 1970s documents, using the same types of tortured logic that the birthers cling to today. But, 10% of the population will believe just about any conspiracy (but not always the same 10%)--Milowent (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You are the exception. Other than one CBS story in 2009 correcting their error in calling the 2008 certification the "original," every single news source I've seen had deliberately continued to use that "original" designation, usually based on FactCheck's deliberately misleading statement that it "touched, examined" etc the "original." If you can find one "reliable source" other than CBS that has taken the time to explain the difference between the 2008 and 1961, I'd like to see it.
And yes they then do what you just did, immediately juxtapose any discussion of the document with the irrelevant and distracting notion that it's "valid proof under Hawaii and federal law." No, it's at best "prima facie" proof of its contents (as it says on its face), meaning that there's a rebutable presumption that can be overcome by contemporaneous evidence, i.e., the 1961 certificate. And how "prima facie proof" becomes "valid proof" of natural born citizenship under the constitution (or of anything under federal law) is never explained. Simply put, if the 1961 said he was born elsewhere he'd be out of office instantaneously. End of story.
No, that USA Today piece does not say what you imply it does. Pretty much the OPPOSITE, particularly if you know the backstory. The backstory is that Lou Dobbs made the (truthful) neo-birther observation that Obama hadn't released his 1961 original, and CNN went ballistic (ultimately firing him) and issued a statement that its "researchers" had determined that the original had been DESTROYED. Which was, of course, absolutely false, and would create an embarrassing problem for anyone generating a 2008 certification allegedly based on the original. So the Health Department official, Okubo, realized she had to correct this misimpression -- a daunting task, because her previous statement eight months earlier had implied she'd looked at "birth certificate," which she did NOT, and the debate was now focused on that very term. So instead, she issues a new statement claiming she looked at a "vital record" and had nothing more to add to her old or new statement. But we know that "vital" record wasn't any birth certificate.
Probably not worth going into Okubo's other attempts to mislead, i.e., claiming there IS no such thing as a "short form" or "long form," the trick being in the Bill Clintonesque use of "is," insofar as what they issue NOW (as opposed to 1961) is just the computerized (short form) printout. I'll also overlook that bit of dishonesty in the current Wikipedia article about how Okubo wasn't prohibited by Hawaiian law from discussing what's in Obama's file -- of course she was prohibited, but made an exception to spew her officious, misleading little half-truths.
The many shades may be obvious to you, but they're excluded from the Wikipedia conspiracy piece. Its sole purpose seems to be to perpetuate the notion that there's no issue regarding Obama's birth documentation or his birth hospital, which there quite obviously is even if it has to do with something other than his being born outside the United States.
In the Rather case the libs did make ridiculous arguments about the authenticity of the memos. A very similar thing is being done by the libs with the 2008 certification, trying to make it out as more authentic and "original" proof than it is. The birthers (and neo-birthers) aren't manufacturing fake documents -- they're trying to uncover the real ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You did not look at my points. The video about Dubplate Drama does not contain Alexandra Dreyfus. The video interview with Mojo does not mention Lion's Gate Studios. Using MySpace to claim the production of a record is dubious. I am saying if you remove all this unverified and downright incorrect information, a very small stub is left that could be merged into the LonelyGirl 15 page. Please do not ignore valid claims because you are against articles being deleted. Bunzo1984 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring your claims, but I think they suggest the article and sourcing needs improvement, not deletion.--Milowent (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Milowent – Thanks for the encouragement. Indeed there is a dilemma of meanings when using the words—deletion, deletionist, deletionism, inclusion, inclusionist, and inclusionism. What is a tactic and what is a philosophy? So I thought I’d lay them out this way (as I see it). The following is based on three broad project goals:
Better Content Quality
Broader Content Scope
Broader Project Participation
Term
Tactic, Philosophy or Practitioner
Goals Impeded
Goals Supported
Deletion
Tactic
Participation and thus Scope
Content Quality, Narrower Scope
Deletionist
Practitioner (one who prefers deletion as a tactic of the first order)
Participation and thus Scope
Content Quality, Narrower Scope
Deletionism
Philosophy (deletion as a tactic of the first order is preferable to article improvement and editor encouragement)
Participation and thus Scope
Content Quality, Narrower Scope
Inclusion
Tactic (literally not deleting) (also the tactic of article improvement and editor encouragement)
Content Quality (Slows the pace of quality improvement through deletion)
Participation, Scope and Content Quality
Inclusionist
Practitioner (one who prefers article improvement and editor encouragement and mentoring as a tactic of first order)
Content Quality (Slows the pace of quality improvement through deletion)
Participation (through encouragement and mentoring), Scope and Content Quality (through article improvement)
Inclusionism
Philosophy (article improvement and editor encouragement/mentoring are preferred as the tactics of first order)
Content Quality (Slows the pace of quality improvement through deletion)
Participation (through encouragement and mentoring), Scope and Content Quality (through article improvement)
"I suspect there are more sources which could be located to show notability that we just don't have easy access to." Burden of proof is on you, buddy. Prove that there are sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy to, if you simply paypal me a few thou so I can fly to west Georgia and go to the libraries to obtain them.--Milowent (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I deliberately did not refer to a particular AFD, from a desire to avoid any appearance of canvassing, so would you consider removing the name of the particular AFD from the WP:N talk page in your response? I'm looking for general guidance, not eyes on particular AFDs. Thanks. Edison (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think rules can be hard to apply (and certainly to formulate) in the abstract, so it was worth mentioning the AfD for context. If its canvassing, its only canvassing a range of possible opinions, not any particular faction (which would be the potential concern), right?--Milowent (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh great. I'll have to concentrate on the "vegan" part instead of the "chocolate" part to stay on the wagon. Thanks. :-) --Milowent (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I was asking about your comment as was the other editor, it is not ok to suggest that editors have voted to delete an article because the are as you say, Gary Colman haters. But know that don't you, you are just trying to be clever aren't you, well it is not clever at all to comment in such a way, no sir not clever at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course I will, although you don't need it, its just a couple of keyboard strokes and sometimes what can be humour doesn't transfer down the information highway very well, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, very good. Looks like "no consensus" is a likely close there, and if so I'll take a stab at improving the article as it needs to be.--Milowent (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
If you didn't revert me so quickly with your librarian type efficiency, I wouldn't have exclaimed so. In fact, I am typing something onto the talk page now, but us human editors of wikipedia are slower than you.--Milowent (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe the edit summary was appropriate. It did not denigrate any editor, but was my opinion of the quality of the article, which does indeed suck balls (which doesn't mean he may not be notable).--Milowent (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Where I grew up "sucks balls" was common parlance, is it not everywhere? Plus its usage was not in reference to Ken Dickson.--Milowent (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes but it is inappropriate on a BLP page, and there is just no need for that language in edit summaries whatsoever. If you like, we could ask at WP:BLPN if people think that is the best and most appropriate way to explain an editor's edits in edit summaries at a WP:BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As you fail to see how use of an edit summary of "sucks balls" is not appropriate, I have brought the matter to BLPN for discussion from some fresh eyes. Please see [3]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Surra de Bunda
On June 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Surra de Bunda, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Wow, look, you're a reviewer now! Nobody lets me review things... Back in my day they didn't have these fancy titles for regular editors -- you're more powerful than I am now! --JayHenry (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Recommend you "rescue" Rachel Uchitel further by introducing all the info I recently added to her lede. At a minimum, the citations are more reliably sourced that huffingtonpost.com and tmz.com and should be introduced as citations only to the applicable sections/statements. I have to move to my next save. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI, since you've pointed out wrongdoing of a couple of admins who may not be aware of the RFA I'd suggest you give them courtesy notigication that you've involved them in that thread.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the point of listing every other admin that should be de-sysoped. I for one will stipulate that anyone who both treated a living person like Herostratus, and then tried to amend policy to make such abuse acceptable under policy, I would cast an oppose !vote in their reconfirmation RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand that it may not convince you, but I guess I hope it will be a point that other viewers of the discussion may take consideration of. I am NOT saying that Herostratus is blameless, just that deadminning him over it is far too drastic. If this had been a discussion of whether to block him on ANI, I really doubt it would even get that far. But since its been poised as a new RFA, people automatically assume that's the proper punishment for the crime, if there was one.--Milowent (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want to keep listing i'm not going to stop you, although I think my position is clear enough that I'll refrain from going to go thumbs up-thumbs down on the rest. My guess is that if you continue you'll probably be asked to start moving it over to the talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Think I'd be in the same boat you are with that. I know how to number, I know how to colapse, no idea how to both colapse and keep the numbers.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cirt. Man I'm still scratching my head over why you wrote an article on that Ken Dickson guy. So random.--Milowent (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Really...
This sort of thing is just so un-necessary. It serves no useful purpose (did you actually look at the images I nominated for deletion, not to mention that editor's long-term history, and do you think that this sort of crap even comes close to passing NFCC 1?) and just makes everyone's editing experience more unpleasant.
I know we've had our differences, and disagree on some fairly fundamental issues!, but can we not put those aside in the name of harmonious editing except in cases of the most flagrant necessity? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 22:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I was bit cranky to be honest, TT. I'll dig a little further next time, and my comment could have been toned better.--Milowent (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Milowent -- the other day when I was really discouraged, having been beaten down by The Man, you told me to go look at Giano and Malleus Fatuorum for inspiration regarding non-admin editors with prowess. I had a look this afternoon, and you were right! Made me feel good and somewhat rejuvenated. Thanks for the encouraging words. Later. Minor4th• talk21:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to answer on your behalf, and didn't realise you were around. I'm just frustrated at the lack of investigation and thought some users are putting into that RFA, and the sense I have of a lynching that won't go away. For some reason it's got me worked up enough to keep going back and comment - I'm not usually like that, but I sense injustice there, and that nags at me - Begoon (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, comment away, I took no offense at all. total witch hunt going on there. When people say "wikipedia is just like high school!" they fail to realize that life is too, in some ways.--Milowent (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. And yes, it is, but the high schoolers have an excuse for their immaturity... - Begoon (talk)
Thank you for your input on AfD
I will give it, and you all the consideration y'all deserve, with the same sensitivity as you showed in you article edit summary. In other words, not much of either. GregJackPBoomer!07:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with admins - I was speaking of your eloquent suggestions on how and what I need to do in the future. As a side note, in case you did not see it on the AfD page, I sincerely hope that your use of the word "chief" was not a slur based on my Native American heritage. I will WP:AGF that you were not aware of either my race or the fact that the use of that word is considered to be very insulting. Please do not address me in that manner in the future, as racial slurs are considered to be a violation of WP:NPA. Regards, GregJackPBoomer!12:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey Greg, seriously I had no idea of your Native American heritage or even that the use of "chief" as slang was derived from that. Growing up, this was commonly used to refer to someone claiming they were the boss (like the "chief of police"), and while some snark was implied by me, nothing racial was implied at all. I'll go check the AfD page now.--Milowent (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I really did not figure that you meant it in that manner, but every ethnic group has words or phrases that have been used to insult them in the past and that their members are hyper-sensitive about. If I didn't tell you, you wouldn't know, would you? So I hope we can move forward in a friendly manner (though not necessarily agreeing on everything). Anyway, thanks for clearing it up, I really appreciate it. GregJackPBoomer!14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Who died and made you king? That's a tad rude, especially since we've had similar discussions on ARS about sourcing unreferenced BLPs in the past. I am reverting and you are free to post your opinion that it doesn't "belong" if you must.--Milowent (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Those other discussions were off topic too. If you want to extend the scope of ARS, that would be a valid topic. Verbalchat21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The scope of the ARS is not changing, the talk section as long as I've been reading it will deal with topics of interest. the ARS newsletter even dealt with unreferenced BLPs.--Milowent (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The scope of the ARS is clear (see the name). "Jeebus WTF" is a personal attack, and particularly insulting. Please remove it. Verbalchat21:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Stick to your guns Milowent, Verbal has tried to run roughshod over a number of people over their idea of policy or guidance, when it was not what the policy said. GregJackPBoomer!22:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Join the project at User:Milowent/Unreferenced BLP Rescue. If we got 50 editors doing this, we could knock out every unreferenced BLP. Its not hard to at least add a few sources to an article, and those who are deletion-minded can also ferret out those that are truly not notable or sourceable. We are starting with unreferenced BLPs from April 2008, currently at 455.--Milowent (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank You!
Both for the kind words (on the August pile), and for your own work on the "hard end" of the unsourced pile. It's very much appreciated. Have a great weekend! --j⚛e deckertalk00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit, I enjoy the little promotional plugs you're giving the unreference BLP drive in the AfD discussions! If a couple more people join in we'll have April 2008 done in no time. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks. If we only draw some people away from fixating on things like ANI and AFD drama, we'll have an army!--Milowent (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I'm not worried. At least that off hand comment apparently registered with him. The middle school playground never ends, really.--Milowent • talkblp-r03:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I put in a request to have the AfD semi-protected, hopefully we can get that done before the vandal hops another IP. Connormahtalk03:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
j⚛e deckertalk has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I <redacted> with you wholeheartedly, Milowent. We <redacted> can't be trusted to <redact> without self-apointed <redacted> wiping our <redacted> for us, can we? Otherwise this place would be a regular <redacted> and who knows what might happen then? People might actually start <redacted> for <redacted>'s sake, and we can't have that! Dekkappai (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Right. This kind of censorship is far more disruptive and creates far more ill will than calling a spade a spade. (Note for further amusement that snottiness and hypocricy are explicitly stated in some editors involved, yet pointing that out would no doubt lead to a "civility" warning.) Ah well, the Rescue Squadron has always been a half-half proposition: Half to do good work (countering the bad work), and half a magnet for trolls who can't stand to see organized, contructive efforts made. Time to remove it from my watchlist... Dekkappai (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of article Tom Krieglstein
Thank you for contributing to this discussion on Courcelles' discussion page. The Grant Park Victory Speech, 2008 article was a smart find and I thank you for it. Even though you added a few words that graced the edge of incivility, you followed them up with some kind words. Judging from this talk page I see that is something you are working on, so for that:
Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for telling it like it is with this restaurant's article. As the person who originally tried to bring this issue and, IMO, obvious use of WP by an administrator to advertise and promote a restaurant, to light (and was subsequently called "disruptive" and a "dick" by administrators for doing so) I thank you for your input. It was clear to me from the beginning that whether or not the article technically fills the letter of the law, its style of writing, sudden polished appearance on WP, and non-notability all fly in the face of satisfying the spirit of the law. Even Jimbo Wales recognized it when he took a look at it and asked, in so many words, why it was originally written. While I suppose the author is innocent until proven guilty, it is still highly suspicious that the article was written at all when he claims that not only does he not know anyone at the restaurant, but is not a fan nor customer of the restaurant. So why on earth did he take the time to write that article, research it to the extent he did, and write in the style he did? The possible answers are obvious, but I won't say them outright for fear of being labled a slanderer. But his terse response to Jimbo's questions on the author's talk page speak volumes, IMO. Stating that no, he apparently has no personal interest in the restaurant (and added that he did not get paid to write the article) begs the question, "Well, then why did you feel compelled to research and write such a detailed article?" While it may not be necessary for him to answer this obvious question, the ongoing omission of the answer certainly raises my eyebrows. Anyway, thanks for your input and validation. It is too bad all this had to happen to bring this article to light, and I hope that ultimately I am given a "pass" for any minor procedural error I made in an attempt to (boldly) improve WP. And I second the above civility barnstar. Sincerely, Njsustain (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, Jimbo Wales himself just made this comment on the Daryl: AFD page:
"Cookiehead, your sarcastic humor is unnecessary and in fact counter-productive here. You bring to the forefront a completely valid point, and snarking about it diminishes the impact of the point. Many of us have puzzled about why an article about a completely run-of-the-mill restaurant with some good local reviews was singled out for an article. Some wondered about a conflict of interest. The fact that there is a Scientology connection explains a lot, and not in a way that is favorable to the cause of this article. Cirt writes a lot about topics connected to Scientology. That there is a connection to Scientology here is quite relevant to any thoughtful understanding of what is going on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)"
So perhaps someone will soon, or should (though it won't be me) ask Cirt outright if he wrote the article to promote a Scientologist-run business. I think that would count as a conflict of interest, but what do I know, I'm a disruptive dick (according to some administrators)?Njsustain (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding the two maps, I think the confusion you have (I don't mean this to be insulting, I just assume you are not familiar with the geography of the state) is that the map on the left is of Middlesex County, and the red blotch shows the location of the city of New Brunswick. The right map is of NJ, and shows the location of Middlesex County. The maps seem to be superfluous to the article, IMO. Njsustain (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
But what about the children!
"however they were either not reliable (one was by a child)" haha, glad you caught that one. That child is probably editing wikipedia as we speak. There was a long article in 1981 (a longer version of one i had cited in The Mystery of Chimney Rock article) about the Choose your own adventure books that noted that a paperback children's series is very difficult to get press about. Thus, although the series was extremely popular in the 1980s, it was very unlikely that individual books would get a lot of mainstream press attention.--Milowent • talkblp-r12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes indeed! The poor children! (And the adults they become....) I think, however, that the point of WP:GNG is that when people fondly remember something they'll be motivated to write about their memories, and the best way to differentiate the memories that are run of the mill from the stuff that will likely have an enduring resonance is to check if those memories got attention from independent reliable sources. If the child that wrote that review were to become a professional writer (rather than a Wikipedia editor!) and wrote about that book in a reliable source, then we'd have something to work on. I agree it can be arbitrary, however on the whole our guidelines are reasonable and work well. Where there are problems, it is possible to raise those issues on the guideline and see if the guidelines can be adjusted. There are a number of children's series which get an awesome amount of media attention! Mind boggling in fact! From what I have gathered when doing my research, is that the series attracted some attention - though it would be interesting to see how the claims that the series was ground-breaking really stands up to muster by anyone willing to do the research. There have been own choice novels since at least the 60s. And not all were children's books by any means! In the field of reader engagement this particular children's series doesn't appear to be that significant. I'll look some stuff up later if you're interested, as I really got into reader engagement and some of the literary theories of Roland Barthes at one time. Even published some material on it [4]. SilkTork *YES!12:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia Article Circle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I'll look at the 1st (i saw there was some merger stuff in that time period, but didn't locate the source) and fix up the 2nd. Essentially there was lots of evidence of AMIB taunting ARS for sport, but his nomination to delete of course omitted that context.--Milowent • talkblp-r13:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're conflating things; the page was created to make a point about userspace essays, not about the ARS. See here. It was deleted less than half an hour later, with still nary a mention of the Article Rescue Squadron. pablo13:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The myth that this was an attack page was started by a now-banned user, never found much traction, and was thoroughly refuted by one of the teachers on playground duty at the time. pablo14:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was a myth, as the title of the page was an "attack." Still its just typical squabbling I don't need to emphasize on the timeline.--Milowent • talkblp-r14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that, I have not mastered merging protocols yet. I did rewrite using the original source--it seemed the Lutheran Church got omitted at some point, as the old article said "top 5" but only listed 4 of the 5 structures.--Milowent • talkblp-r04:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep placing {{Copied}}s, even if you're not completely sure. It's much easier to fill out or fix a placed template than to identify a missing one. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
AGK
Can you look at AGK's page and help. I do not know how to submit an arbitration request. People who want to bully others will use excuses like "since the user didn't know how to file a request, the request was not formally filed and can be dismissed." This is lawyering. Please help. At the very least, put everything in the right form, just see AGK's page for the main text of the complaint. Thank you. Presidentmalia (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I said sorry to you on AGK's page. Also said that if it is a waste of time, please do what is necessary to have the article. If someone opposed the article on the country of Belize (after all, non-notable, tiny country), they are full of it. Tvoz and others are full of it. Just making specious and frivolous excuses. Presidentmalia (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words - I created that article last year and it was really nice to see that someone appreciated it - considering all the trouble I've been hitting with AfDs lately, it was very nice to read your comment on that talk page...! I always try to create articles, even if I don't know much about the subject, because I know that other people will add to it... Tduk (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you ever need help with sourcing and such, let me know, one of my primary interests on the project is preserving and sourcing verifiable content that is notable from deletion. There are some categories of materials which are not appropriate (unverifiable content, original research, attack pages, hoaxes), but too much material gets too hastily removed, in my opinion. Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r00:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently created a page for Kappa Tanabe who is a Japanese guitarist, currently touring with Estelle I think. It got speedy deleted (wrongly, I'm pretty sure) - but I think that if it had hit AfD it wouldn't have passed unless someone found some good Japanese sources. Do you have any suggestions on how to find such sources? The same user has been nominating half the pages I create for deletion! Tduk (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for William Coleman (editor)
On 27 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Coleman (editor), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Also, do you think this can be saved? [7] If so, feel free to make any changes there yourself! :) (Sheesh, look at this, right? [8]Tduk (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The hook, that he's a guitarist who has toured with many notable people, is a borderline claim when tested in my experience. Unless we can find some decent mainstream newspapers (in any language) who have covered it. I have saved some Bulgarian popstars from dustbin by finding Bulgarian newspaper sources, e.g., Andrea Teodora, but this one is harder.--Milowent • talkblp-r02:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to professionalize your language a bit? I think your points are harmed by your tone and vocabulary, and since I'm generally sympathetic to your viewpoint, I would hate to see your statement(s) discounted on that basis. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
JC, you should have seen the first version I typed, thank god I didn't commit that one to the page! I tweaked it a bit, but I am quite upset about this. It may be time for another hunger strike.-Milowent • talkblp-r02:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Thanks for doing that. I appreciate how such disputes can generate some pretty strong feelings on both sides, but I try and avoid letting them take over. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Jacob Hyer
On 28 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacob Hyer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Milowent, you've previously !voted in a couple of AfDs about this article. I've started to work on it in an attempt to get it to a situation where the COI tag could be removed per the request of the article creator at WP:COIN. Along the way I've come to the conclusion that they in no way meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF, but I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if you think they are met, before starting another AfD. It looks as if the main claim of notability before was related to the news interview, but that doesn't make someone notable as far as I know, for example, if it did then User:Charles Matthews would be notable (interview transcript). Smartse (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note Smartse. I think the notability determination is borderline, but would likely !vote keep to minimize the amount of time wasted on that article in another AfD. I don't think the COI tag can be removed because the creator knows that guy (assuming he isn't him, I dunno, the editor is driven though not a bad guy), and no one else could have ever got that article going otherwise. Unsourced content should be removed if any has crept back in.--Milowent • talkblp-r18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the claims of notability that were the main reason for keeps in the previous AfD were unsourced... The COI tag could be removed even if the author is Kunej, so long as the article is NPOV and V but it isn't which is why it needs to stay. I'll probably send it to AfD again sometime, but would appreciate you taking a deeper look, before !voting keep just to save time. Cheers Smartse (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
For getting involved in the WP:AN/I thread. But I couldn't just stand by & watch a drama queen act in expected form in rousting the peasants to boil oil & sharpen pitchforks over a non-event. So I'm trying to make amends by fixing what uBLPs I can, focussing on the Africa-related one since I happen to have more experience researching that area. (I only wish I could find enough resources to write articles on those current government Ministers of Ethiopia who are still missing them. Ethiopia is not very net-savvy, & libraries in my neck of the woods aren't well-stocked with books about that country.) I'll keep at it, as my time permits, until either I've made sufficient amends or there are none of these problematic articles left.
One article I rescued you might find interesting: Omer Ismail. I find it ironic that this article, about a man who witnessed ethnic-based violence, must be deleted because it is unsourced. I guess safeguarding Ismail's privacy is more important than recognizing his importance for educating the world on the situation in Darfur. -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You have nothing to be sorry for in my book, I appreciated your comments. You were right on point even if we should try to be calmer. But it gets hard when chicken little says the sky is falling and its not. Thanks for committing to focus on those Africa-related articles, that will help1 If only ~250 editors pledged to source 100 uBLP articles each in the next month, the backlog would be eliminated without a problem. And thanks for the reference to Mr. Ismail, it illustrates (in at least a small way) that blanking or deleting material can do harm.--Milowent • talkblp-r22:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Good. Said person has a long history of being disruptive in order to make his points: in a moment of boredom this morning, I found myself sifting thru a surprising list of RfCs & one ArbCom decision which show he has not changed his ways over the years. (He even had the temerity to have that ArbCom decision blanked!) Anyway, keep up the good work saving Wikipedia content, & illegitimi non carborundum. -- llywrch (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I had not noticed. Don't be disheartened, that was a tough one. Get it userified. If you are very industrious, search for hard copy sources to include. A few newspaper profiles would do it.--Milowent • talkblp-r18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
That's the thing. I am not industrious, and I don't have a lot of time to contribute here. If wikipedia is not in a state that I can contribute the little time I have, then so be it. Tduk (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you know that Matison guy? I saw that suggested elsewhere. When that's the case, its harder to objective. Even if you don't, its always hard to see one of your babies go goodbye, that's why I devote my time to trying to save worthwhile content. The key to avoiding deletionist-minded editors is to avoid creating articles on subjects where you only see very sparse sourcing available. Stuff like I think I post elsewhere.--Milowent • talkblp-r18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely don't know him - that's why I didn't even know he'd written a book, and you had to add that part. I just saw him on TV every night on cable, then was amused to see he was VP of the channel I saw him on, and that his costar Trevor Moore went on to become pretty famous. I also don't know Jimmy McMillan or Darren Barrett (though I have been to his shows) etc. Tduk (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Really, I'm not contributing wikipedia because I believe in it, or because I have time to devote because I think it's a worthy cause. I am contributing because I appear to know about things that are not already here, and because I do believe in spreading the knowledge. I'm not doing to devote time to this project for its own sake, if that makes any sense. Especially considering the hostile attitudes and problematic policies I've seen lately. Wikipedia may be reading itself to be the next friendster. Tduk (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
... and further, if I have to constantly defend all of my contributions like this, it simply isn't worth it... and if when I do, I anger users who then go about nominating other articles of mine for deletion as well, it's even worse. That's a lot more time investment required than just posting something on here. Tduk (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm.. I want to say "thanks" again for your help on the Menage a Twang article, but I know that you're doing it because you believe in the project, not because of me specifically. For that, I commend you once again - but it's too soon for another barnstar I think! Anyway, people have demonstrated to me pretty well that wikipedia is not all that welcoming to someone who doesn't have the requisite amount of time needed to create new articles - plus I'm being wikistalked by so many people at this point, I really don't see the point in investing any more time at this point in this way. I'd suggest this to you - see if you can figure out a way to allow people to contribute the little they can more easily, and with less time investment on their part. Something like the ARS, but more like "article idea squadron"... Or "article mentorship via the incunabtor" -- if deleted articles got assigned a mentor from ARS or something, how cool would that be? The reaction I see at my deletion appeal is NOT the kind that I think encourages me to continue to contribute more, if you catch what I'm saying... If wikipedia is going to continue to grow, it needs to get more people contributing, and in order to do that it has to make it easier for them, and allow them to contribute even if they have very little time. Good luck, and I do mean that. Tduk (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI. I've met the guy. I'm removing the trivial cruft, and think there may be a rescuable article by the time I'm done, FWIW. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Read with great interest your Kearney Hub article, and noticed that you'd added Wikilinks to that article in a number of footnotes in other articles citing stories from the paper.
Is this standard Wikipedia practice? My own inclination in composing citations to online newspaper stories is to place a link specifically to the story at the title; and then an external link to the paper's main website at the paper's name. Thus at Kenesaw, Nebraska, I linked to the Hub website when I inserted the reference re. the Kenesaw Homestead Act, a link that you replaced with an internal link to the Hub article.
I am inclined to think that the practice I've been following is more useful, if only in helping readers deal with dead links; but there are certainly arguments to be made for yours as well. Is there a Wikipedia convention governing this, or is it up to the individual editor? If there is such a convention, could you tell me where to find it? I've looked through WP:CITE and a number of links therefrom, but haven't found anything specific.
Thanks in advance for your attention to this; could you please reply at my talk page?
Thanks for the reply. Since there doesn't appear to be a standard convention, I'll stick to my own practice. As I said, there are arguments to be made both ways: mine is more useful if the link to the story goes dead, but yours is better if a reader wants to check out the reputation of the paper. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to combine the two.
I watch a lot of Nebraska articles, which is how your edits came to my attention. I actually live in Kearney, and an article on the Hub has been on my to-do list for a long time. I've done a couple of newspaper articles: Columbus Telegram and Hastings Tribune; I'd planned to do the Hub at some indefinite future date, but it probably would've been in the fairly distant future. Glad that someone actually did it.
Sir, I am Don Martin (Donald G. Martin)and you have been patiently place-holding the Donald G. Martin page for approximately six months now since an Afd finding, and I assume holding it for eventual re-review, during which time I have been focusing 100% of myown efforts elsewhere (with over 800 edits and a Barnstar) on city and county pages. At the time of the Afd I had just posted a considerable group of additional facts relating to notability, that I assume were never reviewed at that time due to a heated Afd discussion, as well posting full text articles for those where there were only headlines (due to newspapers limiting access to paid archives, and particulry negative Wiki editor, 19Nightmares, who questioned if articles were even about me at all so I posted the full text). I don't want to make a big deal out of this -- AND I CERTAINLY WILL NOT EDIT MY OWN BLP PAGE IF RESSURECTED (An admitted probem in the past in my over-zealously trying to correct errors) -- but would appreciate it if this were perhaps a good time for someone to INDEPENDENTLY re-review the question of notability, using the additional notability information. If not, then I understand as well. I'm simply asking if it merits a re-review. Austex • Talk18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
One last notation. The primary and most vociferous opponent to the article was User:19Nightmares who was banned indef in June largely due to the attacks on this page and the various editors, and constantly questioned its veracity. Disclosure: I myself had a 7 day ban for sockpuppetry which I quickly learned to avoid and to better understand editing policy. No more comments. Austex • Talk19:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Alas, that's the way it is. Hope you will look at the considerable additional notability info (at my Austex page) that was never included by the original author. He obviously did not know a great deal of the relevant information. Austex • Talk21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
needs proper histmerge
Hi, you redirected a page here, but the proper way to do this would be to perform a hist-merge. Otherwise, the history of the older article (which you redirected to the newer one) gets lost. --Ragib (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The other one was pretty off by being so incomplete, as well. Please feel free to improve on my rough justice, I'm trying to save these articles from the scrap heap.--Milowent • talkblp-r15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Phil Davison
How is it trolling to see something without any preconceived notions to form an unbiased opinion regardless of how one thinks of something? The children of wikipedia believe they should follow an orthodox doctrine. However, in their quest to be seen as highly knowledgeable of wikipedia policy, they overstep and as a result things are deleted that should not be deleted. Such arguments made by the children of wikipedia as seen on the 2nd AFD for Phil Davison, need to be disproved and shown for what they are, to prevent unnecessary deletions. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
On 12 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elizabeth Bisland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elizabeth Bisland(pictured) lost a celebrated race around the world to Nellie Bly in 1889–90? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Great job! Don't forget to take your bow on the "last few to do" page! :)
Also, the article title includes Khan in the guys name, which is not repeated (that I saw) in any of the sources. Do you think we should move the article to reflect the usual rendering? --j⚛e deckertalk20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just noticed User:Milowent/Bryan Fischer--but just after editing Bryan Fischer. Your proto-article is superior, for the most part. I could move in material from your draft, but I think you'd do a better job. (Plus I'm getting tired of typing now, and a bit hungry for dinner.) Tama1988 (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to take a look soon. I had the old version userfied to me (it was a deleted prod which went unnoticed) because he seems quite notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r14:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree with Milowent, however he has every right to post his comment on Black Kite's talk page. You should never delete another editor's talk page message unless there is a case of obvious vandalism, or if it falls under the provisions of WP:TPO. Your removal was likely in good faith, however Black Kite is a big boy, he is more than capable of monitoring and responding to criticism on his own talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots03:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
People do have the strangest ideas, I just came across that at WP:WQA. I seem to have a real fan in Barts1a, it's such a pity that they've been blocked for a week for disruption. Fences&Windows03:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Given BK's tendencies, I'm surprised he didn't decide you were calling him a pornographer and block you indefinitely. *Snark*, RayTalk20:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I wish to award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar in recognition of your diligent efforts in actively practicing WP:AFTER and your respect for WP:ATD. Your continued efforts accross Wikipedia act as an example to all. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.11:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that if I came on a little bit strong in the AfD it wasnt intentional. By " Fix or delete" I meant if you had the sources, use them. I looked real quick and didnt find any better sources than what were already being used, if that was the extent of the sources then the article should be deleted. On a side note, I just went through a very nasty divorce where my exes only excuse for her behavior ( which goes without saying must have been atrocious since I now have sole custody of our three kids ) was that I was "lazy" and that word does not work well around me. Apologies if I was out of line, it wasnt intentional. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Milowent, did you not note that I called you "bootybutt" in an edit summary? If you don't bring me up at ANI I may have to resort to stronger measures. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Milowent, I have the Big Red Button on my talk page, and it's been very helpful for me--from one BLP editor to another. Only 19000+ to go, instead of 20000+. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, I am drafting an RfC on that soon, you uncivil heathen. And on BLPs, for some reason 19,000+ makes me feel much more optimistic than the low 20s did, its like an end can actually be contemplated!--Milowent • talkblp-r04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You aint whistling Dixie there! But look at the wonderful people we can hang around with! Especially the bootybutt himself ;) Hi Drmies!...lol Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for you kind invitation to join the Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project. I'll have a look and see to what extent I might help it in preventing the loss of so many useful articles such as the one on Prof. Jowitt. I note however this was deleted by a member of the project - so I might well have different views about what is needed. :) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
Hey there. I ran across this one working through the back-log. Apparently this person is a semi-notable subject. Added one reference but the problem is there is a yacht racer with the same name and dont know if its the same person, different person and there is a lot of references for that Paddy. If you get a chance could you take a look. Your a little better in finding sources than me. Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
hmmm. I don't think a child would ask for "the tools" like this, but who knows. Well, personally it made me chuckle despite being a waste of time.--Milowent • talkblp-r20:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I abhor the idea of revenge nominations. But I enjoy how every new name here gets the talk page aflame like little old ladies in church. "Oh Dream, he'll vote for anything. He even !voted to keep botswana-iceland relations cruft in 2009!" "Oh and an admin's signed it, how could he?!?! Pitchforks at the ready men!" Feyd's comment is about more than revenge noms, and its not a defense of CW's actions (though the word choice is careful and flattering) as much as its an explanation for what causes his actions. CW, at times, has taken on incredibly idiotic deletion nominations. Those nominations do real damage, and the nominators escape any sanction. Sure, he's also taken up the cause of some inane subjects, but the harm of keeping even those esoteric articles is zero in almost every case. Feyd's description of CW's selflessness reminds me of someone, yet this RfC continues. And sometimes analogies are absurd and sometimes bad behavior is bad but also blown way out of proportion. Slap your child's hand everytime he goes for the cookie jar before snacktime, but don't blow up the cookie jar and them with it. And I thought people were supposed to propose solutions to an RfC but for all the walls of text we have created, that section remains empty.--Milowent • talkblp-r06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Ive been following along as best as I can at WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. I noticed that you had commented here and there and, as you are part of the rescue squadron, decided to ask you. What policy did CW originally allegedly violate to start with and at what point does this type of discussion cease? So far Ive seen many different policies thrown around but the original statement seems to be involving the removal of unsourced or unreferenced tags. Ive been interested in the squadron since a lot of what I have been doing has been going through the UBLP backlog and would like a good clarification so I dont make the mistakes that everyone is talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfstorm000 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Wolfstorm, you can just ignore that RFC, its a mess that isn't going to teach you much except how drama looks on Wikipedia. If you never remove an unreferenced tag from an article without first adding some sources, you'll be fine.--Milowent • talkblp-r21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I came across this bit of old vandalism. I know you find the hoaxes we come across at URBLPR and little bits of odd wiki-info interesting, so I thought I would share it with you. Not that I condone this type of vandalism at all, I just find it hard to believe that it stayed in the article for 7 months before I read it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots21:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that! I do have a great interest in hoaxes, though I don't condone them (especially on wikipedia). Its crazy that such an obvious hoax sticks around so long, yet another example of why IP edits are a problem.--Milowent • talkblp-r21:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
lol, man, it wouldn't be too hard, i'll try to get to it, but if i don't i guess the nom just expires which is not terrible. thanks for the reminder.--Milowent • talkblp-r13:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
