Hi, Please see User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator. Thanks. Arrivisto ( talk) 09:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have taken on a massive rewrite of Jonathan King. I too have become slightly obsessed and have read both his biographies and watched his two films on his life. Do you really mean Dorset or Dover street? Did he have two apartments? Why change one source from Telegraph to Independent and give it the wrong writer (Chalmers not Moore)? Why miss out all mentions for Who let the dogs out and Tubthumping and Orson - surely these were more significant than price of homes or exam results? And surely the fact that the man who started the investigation initially did not mention (by his own admission) King to Max Clifford should be included? Since you're correcting it constantly I thought to mention such things here rather than change there and be reverted. Ballymorey ( talk) 06:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
should not the introduction and box include writer and film maker?
I prefer the more recent photo
I personally prefer the Charterhouse picture - it was more appropriate
Wasn’t Denning just a plugger for Bell? King writes that Dick Leahy was responsible.
Shouldn’t we mention he was given awards as top producer in 1971 and 1972?
In 1997 wasn’t the MITS called something like Man of the Year before PC?
Wouldn’t Moody Blues be better known than Hanson?
I still think we should simply mention he was asked to judge Pop Stars but then, after Cowell also declined, Lithgoe took the role, rather than accepting either side of the denied story.
“Further trials” rather than “third”, as sources say.
Nowhere does it say Denning was named in that investigation which was probably why he wasn’t arrested.
I still think Max Clifford and the “others only” passage is of interest (as explained in his film).
Not sure the Cowell bail connection is fair. It implies something.
Vile Pervert ought to have its own link. I read it has just passed 2 million views - a lot for a full length movie though it is free. But so are all videos.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1958447/Jonathan-King-makes-Vile-Pervert-The-Musical.html
All small details but I think would polish it! I'd do them myself but was told not to. Ballymorey ( talk) 09:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah. I'm sorry that I only seem to talk to you these days when I have an anxiety about my Jstor access. Today I find I can log in to my account, but I can't get beyond the previews. Is it the same for you? Brianboulton ( talk) 22:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't around when you tried to contact me. I was away for a few days. I am sure that what you did was the best thing to do, under the circumstances. You raised the question of salting. I have gone ahead and done that. It is perhaps borderline for WP:BLPDEL, but I think in a borderline case we should err on the side of protecting privacy. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for closing that thread, Sarah. I agree that it would not have become so personalised if I had pursued a resolution via the AFC WikiProject. I'm very sorry that LaMona seems to want to leave Wikipedia, and I wish she'd reconsider. As I remarked on the first occasion I posted on her talk page, she's done so much good work and it would be a shame to lose it. Having seen the thread above, it's worth noting that I didn't know her gender until I was composing the ANI report and didn't want to keep using she/he as the pronoun, so I checked her user page to see if she had stated her gender. The version at the time had an "Identifiers for me" section which gave her ORCID identifier, linking directly to personal information. It might be worth rev-deleting those versions of the user page and somehow warning others that they risk outing themselves if they post those sort of links, which may be a particular concern for our female editors. All the best, -- RexxS ( talk) 08:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
What isn't addressed here is that the entire AFC was an act of harassment. The accusations were at a level of near hysteria; every stated accusation was disproved in the comments by actual analysis; and I was called things like "crazy", "unstable". It seems that is ok, but my use of the word "sexist" (which I still firmly believe of the initial poster) overrode any mud they could sling at me. This is not parity of viewpoints. I am deeply disappointed that this is allowed on Wikipedia, with no "adults" available to stop this behavior before it does great damage. Note that some of the perpetrators of and participants in that ANI are continuing it in other venues. This is deeply damaging, and quite honestly looks like "Lord of the Flies" behavior. I was once proud to be a Wikipedian, but that is gone because a few bullies (some of which have little history with Wikipedia) are allowed to harass a long-time editor off the platform. I do not trust Wikipedia as a place to engage for this reason. And I'm quite sure that is not crazy on my part. LaMona ( talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@ LaMona, RexxS, Montanabw, Littleolive oil, Hijiri88, Kudpung, and Eloquence: the question is what can be done to stop threads like that from being so aggressive. No matter the substance of the original complaint, there's no doubt that the thread became abusive; someone made a sexual remark, someone called her crazy or batshit crazy. Those things stop women from becoming involved with Wikipedia, and not only women. How can we encourage bystander intervention so that people will step in quickly when threads deterioriate? SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"I wanted to stop the discussion about LaMona"And you did. She's now claiming that as vindication of her actions at AfC. I'm still waiting for your response to my question about related issues, on Tagsihsimon's talk page, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
One problem is that ANI is virtually useless for resolving disputes unless the conduct of one person is (a) egregious (b) they are a new or otherwise vulnerable person - for instance if they are an IP or if they have been sanctioned in the past. See a small experiment I did at Wikipediocracy here. In cases where the conditions listed above aren't satisfied, ANI goes on aimlessly, serving the drama god. The unstructured discussion at ANI virtually invites threads to become aggressive and sprawling. I don't know how this can be solved, but RfC/U was discontinued for some reason; perhaps it ought to be revived? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem doing the reading (well, except for time constraints), but the writing does make me gulp. Your prose, like Wadewitz's, is much more elegant than mine, so I'm wondering whether you are willing to tackle this endeavor with me? I've posted an "Offer" to the talk. Victoria ( tk) 19:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI - I'm basically on wiki-break until early September, though I might peek in here and there, depending on how my time goes. Let's see how things spin out; I'm happy taking the lead and I'm a firm believer in no deadlines. Right now it doesn't feel like it's a healthy situation and frankly neither you nor I have to be involved, so let's see where things are at when I return. We can revisit then. Victoria ( tk) 20:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
See Letters close where I'm being told using a short form citation/long form reference is inconsistent. News to me - since I used that same form in almost 50 FAs and over 100 GAs... Help? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You may have noticed discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage relating to various FAC issues, including the question of mentoring for first-time FAC nominators. At present only a very small percentage of the first-time noms get promoted; this can be very discouraging, and might well be turning editors away from FAC. In discussion with the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have devised a simple, voluntary mentoring scheme for first-time nominators, the details of which can be found here (it hasn't gone live yet).
We hope that, as they become aware of the scheme, first-time nominators will take advantage of it. A link to the mentoring page will be included in the FAC instructions once we go live. But of course, we need mentors. We would like the scheme to kick off with a dozen or so names listed, hoping that many more will sign up eventually. Would you be prepared to act as a mentor? You incur no obligation by adding your name to the list; the extent to which you participate in the scheme is entirely a matter for you, and can vary from regular involvement to just once in a while. The objective of the scheme is to help first-time nominators who seek assistance. So please add your name here if you feel you can, or if you have queries or reservations about the scheme, please drop me a line. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Sarah, I didn't realise you were editing at the same time - I hope I didn't edit-conflict you. I was just trying to track down the last few cites like <Collins 86> that don't tell us which edition was used, and I'm trying to verify the source text at the same time. I'll leave you to it and hope to clean up the last few tomorrow. The only thing left for cite clean-up (I hope) is the question of whether we should be making a separate long citation for each author cited when they are in a collection, as MLA requires, or just sticking with a single citation for the collection, which then fails to attribute the author fully. What do you think? -- RexxS ( talk) 00:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
HazelAB ( talk) 12:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I just filed an WP:AN3 regarding this. Figured I'd give you a heads up since the user I reported is an admin who has been reverted by multiple non admin users. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Heather Bresch and User talk:CorporateM
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor reduced a BLP down to a stub after an AfD resulted in "no consensus," deleting what he or she considered "coatrack" and trivial details, and it is clear from the resulting discussion on the talk page that different editors have very different ideas of what kind of details should or should not be included in a BLP. Would you be willing to take a look at the discussion (which isn't as yet overly long) and give your opinion on what sort of details WikiProject Biography prefers included and/or excluded from BLPs? The article in question is Lisa Tenner and the discussion is on her talk page. Thanks for your consideration! I'm Tony Ahn ( talk) 06:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah. Wearing your admin hat, would you consider looking at Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment, with a view to closure? Apart from the odd late !vote there has been no discussion for two weeks. There is clearly no consensus for change, so the thread has become unnecessary clutter on the talkpage. The thread immediately below, an infobox discussion, is likewise moribund and consensusless. I recently had my knuckles rapped (justifiably I suppose) for trying to close both of these discussions, but I can't see any purpose in keeping them alive. Please consider closing them. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I've posted a neutral request, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Requests for Comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm writing to you here because I am not certain that the @ has worked properly and you have been 'alerted' by this command that I have mentioned you in my talk page. Please, feel free to archive this section if you wish. Sam10rc ( talk) 01:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Please see User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator. Thanks. Arrivisto ( talk) 09:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have taken on a massive rewrite of Jonathan King. I too have become slightly obsessed and have read both his biographies and watched his two films on his life. Do you really mean Dorset or Dover street? Did he have two apartments? Why change one source from Telegraph to Independent and give it the wrong writer (Chalmers not Moore)? Why miss out all mentions for Who let the dogs out and Tubthumping and Orson - surely these were more significant than price of homes or exam results? And surely the fact that the man who started the investigation initially did not mention (by his own admission) King to Max Clifford should be included? Since you're correcting it constantly I thought to mention such things here rather than change there and be reverted. Ballymorey ( talk) 06:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
should not the introduction and box include writer and film maker?
I prefer the more recent photo
I personally prefer the Charterhouse picture - it was more appropriate
Wasn’t Denning just a plugger for Bell? King writes that Dick Leahy was responsible.
Shouldn’t we mention he was given awards as top producer in 1971 and 1972?
In 1997 wasn’t the MITS called something like Man of the Year before PC?
Wouldn’t Moody Blues be better known than Hanson?
I still think we should simply mention he was asked to judge Pop Stars but then, after Cowell also declined, Lithgoe took the role, rather than accepting either side of the denied story.
“Further trials” rather than “third”, as sources say.
Nowhere does it say Denning was named in that investigation which was probably why he wasn’t arrested.
I still think Max Clifford and the “others only” passage is of interest (as explained in his film).
Not sure the Cowell bail connection is fair. It implies something.
Vile Pervert ought to have its own link. I read it has just passed 2 million views - a lot for a full length movie though it is free. But so are all videos.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1958447/Jonathan-King-makes-Vile-Pervert-The-Musical.html
All small details but I think would polish it! I'd do them myself but was told not to. Ballymorey ( talk) 09:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah. I'm sorry that I only seem to talk to you these days when I have an anxiety about my Jstor access. Today I find I can log in to my account, but I can't get beyond the previews. Is it the same for you? Brianboulton ( talk) 22:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't around when you tried to contact me. I was away for a few days. I am sure that what you did was the best thing to do, under the circumstances. You raised the question of salting. I have gone ahead and done that. It is perhaps borderline for WP:BLPDEL, but I think in a borderline case we should err on the side of protecting privacy. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for closing that thread, Sarah. I agree that it would not have become so personalised if I had pursued a resolution via the AFC WikiProject. I'm very sorry that LaMona seems to want to leave Wikipedia, and I wish she'd reconsider. As I remarked on the first occasion I posted on her talk page, she's done so much good work and it would be a shame to lose it. Having seen the thread above, it's worth noting that I didn't know her gender until I was composing the ANI report and didn't want to keep using she/he as the pronoun, so I checked her user page to see if she had stated her gender. The version at the time had an "Identifiers for me" section which gave her ORCID identifier, linking directly to personal information. It might be worth rev-deleting those versions of the user page and somehow warning others that they risk outing themselves if they post those sort of links, which may be a particular concern for our female editors. All the best, -- RexxS ( talk) 08:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
What isn't addressed here is that the entire AFC was an act of harassment. The accusations were at a level of near hysteria; every stated accusation was disproved in the comments by actual analysis; and I was called things like "crazy", "unstable". It seems that is ok, but my use of the word "sexist" (which I still firmly believe of the initial poster) overrode any mud they could sling at me. This is not parity of viewpoints. I am deeply disappointed that this is allowed on Wikipedia, with no "adults" available to stop this behavior before it does great damage. Note that some of the perpetrators of and participants in that ANI are continuing it in other venues. This is deeply damaging, and quite honestly looks like "Lord of the Flies" behavior. I was once proud to be a Wikipedian, but that is gone because a few bullies (some of which have little history with Wikipedia) are allowed to harass a long-time editor off the platform. I do not trust Wikipedia as a place to engage for this reason. And I'm quite sure that is not crazy on my part. LaMona ( talk) 16:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@ LaMona, RexxS, Montanabw, Littleolive oil, Hijiri88, Kudpung, and Eloquence: the question is what can be done to stop threads like that from being so aggressive. No matter the substance of the original complaint, there's no doubt that the thread became abusive; someone made a sexual remark, someone called her crazy or batshit crazy. Those things stop women from becoming involved with Wikipedia, and not only women. How can we encourage bystander intervention so that people will step in quickly when threads deterioriate? SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
"I wanted to stop the discussion about LaMona"And you did. She's now claiming that as vindication of her actions at AfC. I'm still waiting for your response to my question about related issues, on Tagsihsimon's talk page, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
One problem is that ANI is virtually useless for resolving disputes unless the conduct of one person is (a) egregious (b) they are a new or otherwise vulnerable person - for instance if they are an IP or if they have been sanctioned in the past. See a small experiment I did at Wikipediocracy here. In cases where the conditions listed above aren't satisfied, ANI goes on aimlessly, serving the drama god. The unstructured discussion at ANI virtually invites threads to become aggressive and sprawling. I don't know how this can be solved, but RfC/U was discontinued for some reason; perhaps it ought to be revived? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem doing the reading (well, except for time constraints), but the writing does make me gulp. Your prose, like Wadewitz's, is much more elegant than mine, so I'm wondering whether you are willing to tackle this endeavor with me? I've posted an "Offer" to the talk. Victoria ( tk) 19:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
FYI - I'm basically on wiki-break until early September, though I might peek in here and there, depending on how my time goes. Let's see how things spin out; I'm happy taking the lead and I'm a firm believer in no deadlines. Right now it doesn't feel like it's a healthy situation and frankly neither you nor I have to be involved, so let's see where things are at when I return. We can revisit then. Victoria ( tk) 20:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
See Letters close where I'm being told using a short form citation/long form reference is inconsistent. News to me - since I used that same form in almost 50 FAs and over 100 GAs... Help? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You may have noticed discussions on the WP:FAC talkpage relating to various FAC issues, including the question of mentoring for first-time FAC nominators. At present only a very small percentage of the first-time noms get promoted; this can be very discouraging, and might well be turning editors away from FAC. In discussion with the FAC coordinators, Mike Christie and I have devised a simple, voluntary mentoring scheme for first-time nominators, the details of which can be found here (it hasn't gone live yet).
We hope that, as they become aware of the scheme, first-time nominators will take advantage of it. A link to the mentoring page will be included in the FAC instructions once we go live. But of course, we need mentors. We would like the scheme to kick off with a dozen or so names listed, hoping that many more will sign up eventually. Would you be prepared to act as a mentor? You incur no obligation by adding your name to the list; the extent to which you participate in the scheme is entirely a matter for you, and can vary from regular involvement to just once in a while. The objective of the scheme is to help first-time nominators who seek assistance. So please add your name here if you feel you can, or if you have queries or reservations about the scheme, please drop me a line. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Sarah, I didn't realise you were editing at the same time - I hope I didn't edit-conflict you. I was just trying to track down the last few cites like <Collins 86> that don't tell us which edition was used, and I'm trying to verify the source text at the same time. I'll leave you to it and hope to clean up the last few tomorrow. The only thing left for cite clean-up (I hope) is the question of whether we should be making a separate long citation for each author cited when they are in a collection, as MLA requires, or just sticking with a single citation for the collection, which then fails to attribute the author fully. What do you think? -- RexxS ( talk) 00:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
HazelAB ( talk) 12:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I just filed an WP:AN3 regarding this. Figured I'd give you a heads up since the user I reported is an admin who has been reverted by multiple non admin users. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Heather Bresch and User talk:CorporateM
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor reduced a BLP down to a stub after an AfD resulted in "no consensus," deleting what he or she considered "coatrack" and trivial details, and it is clear from the resulting discussion on the talk page that different editors have very different ideas of what kind of details should or should not be included in a BLP. Would you be willing to take a look at the discussion (which isn't as yet overly long) and give your opinion on what sort of details WikiProject Biography prefers included and/or excluded from BLPs? The article in question is Lisa Tenner and the discussion is on her talk page. Thanks for your consideration! I'm Tony Ahn ( talk) 06:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah. Wearing your admin hat, would you consider looking at Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment, with a view to closure? Apart from the odd late !vote there has been no discussion for two weeks. There is clearly no consensus for change, so the thread has become unnecessary clutter on the talkpage. The thread immediately below, an infobox discussion, is likewise moribund and consensusless. I recently had my knuckles rapped (justifiably I suppose) for trying to close both of these discussions, but I can't see any purpose in keeping them alive. Please consider closing them. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I've posted a neutral request, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Requests for Comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm writing to you here because I am not certain that the @ has worked properly and you have been 'alerted' by this command that I have mentioned you in my talk page. Please, feel free to archive this section if you wish. Sam10rc ( talk) 01:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)