I found some more information about the Ty Cobb photo you restored. It is on the talk page if you are still interested. Rlendog ( talk) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Hi
That can't be right. There are Wikipedias without any admins at all, and even disregarding the smaller Wikis, the Spanish Wikipedia has a lower ratio with 133 admins per 1,037,389 accounts compared to our 1,640 admins per 9,420,191 accounts. Even if you only consider active accounts they have a worse ratio (I don't know the number of active admins there).
Cheers,
Amalthea 08:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Durova. I found your essay about COI and am hoping you can help me. I happened upon this article and noticed that it reads like a résumé. I took a look at the talk page and page history, and it appears that the person about whom the article is written has made numerous edits off and on since February 2006. Based on the content of the user's talk page this person is at least somewhat aware of the COI guidelines. I am unsure whether this user's edits are "COI enough" to address. Any advice/opinion from you is greatly appreciated. Best regards, momoricks (make my day) 03:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If you like, I've prepared this to be a co-nomination. Another alternative might be to run it with a re-edit of your own, and let voters decide, or however you see fit. I really think this should be an FP, and I'm happy to support any edit that does not go "too extreme". Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FB%27nai_B%27rith&diff=284057884&oldid=284053883 <- I presume this is what you meant? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, on the subject of countering systemic bias: I'm currently attempting to get a heavily-illustrated Victorian edition of
Flavius Josephus, the 1st-century Jewish historian. I propose to do something similar with it to the recent Foxe's Book of Martyrs nom: Scan it all in, distribute the images as appropriate, and make new articles for any images we don't have an article to use in yet. Actually, it'll probably work out better there: In all honesty, I think Foxe's Book of Martyrs, while an interesting read for its historical context, is actually evil: It's main themes are 1. Catholics are evil. 2. How glorious and noble it is to die horribly at the hands of Catholics!
A good third of the martyrs he describes seem to be people who did nothing nobler than be incredibly rude to people they should have known better than to be incredibly rude to. And now they're exemplars of good behaviour.
Anyway, back to the point: Unlike Foxe, Flavius Josephus' work is a classic history and excellent primary source, so I'm inclined to put a lot more effort in. If you want, I'll give you warning before I start, so that you can help with any new articles. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Great post and edit summary! :D Acalamari 23:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:A big tip in Galveston2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Niagara rail 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 20, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-20. howcheng { chat} 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you'd be willing to put together a WikiProject triple crown for the Video games project. Prolific WP:VG members with at least a standard crown include:
— Levi van Tine ( t – c) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you think we should nominate this at commons as well? They've been pretty receptive to engravings and lithographs of late. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Just thought I'd quote you out of context. :-) Hi. Ben Aveling 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Er... was that wise, given what you linked to in the message to PM? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you already know about this, but on the off-chance that you don't... http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/
Cheers!
J.delanoy gabs adds 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of those edits are examples of what I discuss at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. People tried to grow an article on a concept with a list of examples of that concept in popular culture or in the news, in the hope that that would magically become an encyclopaedia article by accruing some mystical critical mass. They do that perhaps because they think that that's how encyclopaedia articles are written, based upon what they see elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Bad articles are used as guidelines for new articles, or for article expansion. Yes, providing good content does tend to stop the bad content. That's true of all of the articles mentioned there, and many others besides. And yes, sometimes it takes years for someone to get around to it, or even to learn of the problem in the first place. See Niggerati ( AfD discussion), for example. (It's not necessarily a case of editors "not bothering", note.) Uncle G ( talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Aside from that specific instance, though, where the guideline itself encourages laundry listing, I'm not so certain the cargo cult thesis applies globally. What probably happened with Uncle Tom is that sensible editors didn't want to touch it; I didn't want to touch it. Every time it came up on the watchlist I gritted my teeth and decided 'No, too hot potato to touch.' Until finally, not being a particularly sensible person, I took the plunge anyway. A real article was no farther away than a trot through Google Books, which is why I say no one bothered. Maybe what Wikipedia needs is more motivational forces to bring the dreadful up to B-class: FAC is so politicized and cumbersome it's scarcely worth it. Last time I went through it one reviewer criticized the passive voice and suggested replacement text that actually was--you guessed it--also in passive voice. I rolled my eyes and cut and pasted the stuff in order to get the support, but why go back to a place filled with en-dash fetishists, while twenty percent of the national parks in Africa are redlinked? Durova Charge! 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've handled several hot potatoes in my time, with varying degrees of success. I mentioned Niggerati ( AfD discussion) above. Another such is Portrayals of God in popular media ( AfD discussion). And that, too, was an example of cargo-cult writing. See this version, which is nothing more than a list of examples, including an obligatory one from The Simpsons, put together in the hope that encyclopaedic analysis will magically arise. Jewish mother stereotype ( AfD discussion) is probably not such a hot potato, but this version, again, was mainly unsourced description and a laundry list of occurrences in popular media — yet another example of such cargo cult writing.
But, as I said, it's not necessarily a case of not bothering. I pointed out some reasons above. Here's another. Unfortunately, even if one does do that "trot through" some real sources, hot potato articles can result in reams of abuse. See English language names for Chinese people ( AfD discussion), where I was subjected to streams of outright personal attacks for stating that this and this were effectively the same article ("X is a name for a Chinese person. Some think it pejorative. Some not. Here's a laundry list of people who have got into hot water for using it.") under two different titles, and that instead of growing 22 duplicate articles synthesized from dictionaries and newspaper reports, we could have one, grown from existing scholarly analyses. I found some real sources who discussed the subject, and actually performed the analysis that would link isolated incidents together into a coherent discussion, from H. L. Mencken through Philip H. Herbst to Eric Partridge, and you can see the result in the AFD discussion: a torrent of abuse, that overwhelmed any actual discussion. One can understand neutral editors being reluctant to tackle such problem areas when they see what happens to others who have done. Uncle G ( talk) 13:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It has disappeared. -- MadameArsenic ( talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I was about to thank you for
The Birth of Virtue (a huge improvement over the better-known, salacious painting) but was aroused shocked to notice a nipple to the left. Could you please do something, anything to this? In the meantime, I'm off to take a cold shower. --
Hoary (
talk) 03:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I would not object in the least to reviewing and tightening up the references in the article; indeed, you highlighting the broken link lead to Zoe finding its replacement just now, so thank you for that. It would be helpful to have someone go over the remaining sources used, and where necessary, find further citations; there's no shortage of material around.
Bindel is a highly controversial figure; she's made a name for herself as a columnist by writing articles that, in some jurisdictions, would have her risking criminal charges for inciting hatred. She's also a controversial figure within the UK feminist and LGBT moments; while The Guardian has continued to give her a platform, she's been repeatedly slammed by Peter Tatchell (one of the most prominent gay activists in the UK) and no-platformed by the NUS Women's Campaign (probably the most significant young feminist organisation in Britain).
The problem with your suggested changes to the article, as I explained on the talk page, is that they don't refer to what Bindel actually said - they substitute your interpretation of what you think she meant. This greatly misrepresents both Bindel and the surrounding controversy, since if she had actually ditched the hate speech and worded it in the language you used, she would be not nearly the same lightning rod for controversy.
The secondary problem is that unwarranted assertions of BLP issues are being used to take relevant facts out of the article. Bindel's supporters (represented on the talk page by Benjiboi) attempt to portray the controversy around Bindel as something limited to a few angry trans people, as it can be much more easily dismissed that way. Benjiboi has been making some BLP allegations which simply don't stack up in order to try to take out any mention of Bindel's critics; for instance, in order to try and take out the NUS Women's Campaign reference, he claims - without any evidence - that "it would seem any interest group may be able to insert and get approved a position". He might be using claims of BLP as a shield, but it's still POV pushing. Rebecca ( talk) 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy... -- WebHamster 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Be aware that all the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery things should be linked here - I linked the Midsummer Night's Dream already. This is one of Awadewit's FAs, so I do think we should try and help out if we can =) The LoC has lots of images for it, in all sorts of bizarre places with them never all coming up in the same searches. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento ( talk · contribs) and Rumiton ( talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi ( talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.
For the Committee. MBisanz talk 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Easter egg roll boys2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
|
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
How can I contact you re. your blog & a possible story? Do you have an email addy?
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottydotdot ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's saved as an interlaced JPG. Change it to a progressive. I'd do it, but it ought to be posssible to do a lossless conversion. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't seen it, her new talk at TED might interest you since you are into crochet. Viriditas ( talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
There was already a visually more attractive one in article space, so haven't used this yet. Could be useful someday, though: I recorded the exact formula in the upload notes (our other hyperbolic planes don't have that data). Also did a Möbius strip. Durova Charge! 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Durova, there is a backlog at the Triple Crown nominations page, User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations, of 13 nominations. I was going to work through the list myself, but then realized you haven't done much of the awarding process yourself lately and wanted to see if you felt like doing some? Let me know either way, and I'll help with it. Cirt ( talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
User talk:CIreland#Talk:Julie Bindel confirms what I had suspected. -- Banjeboi 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
May I respectfully suggest avoiding debating with other editors providing statements, including Jehochman, in the RfAr, it's really moot. ArbComm has voted overwhelmingly to accept the arbitration, it's essentially a done deal pending the 49-hour period, and appears to be ready to examine the behavior of all involved, interpreting that widely, per FloNight explicitly. I.e., the RfAr may be a honey-trap pulling in editors who may need a bit of trout-slap or more. Given that my goal is to keep it as simple as possible (which will probably be difficult to impossible), my comment to you here may discourage some from sticking their typographic feet in their metaphorical mouths, which is fine with me. My goal, initially, as expressed quite clearly (I'm amazed, looking back) on Jehochman Talk, where I first became aware of the problem, was to deal directly and cleanly with the single issue of administrative recusal. It turned out to be a much more tenacious problem than I expected would be likely, but I did realize that this might need to end up at ArbComm.
On the other hand, I'm quite willing to defer to your extensive experience. This is just a suggestion that you avoid wasting your time and the time of arbitrators with moot comment. Let the other side say whatever nonsense they like, it will merely rebound on them. As you know, there will be plenty of time for full presentation of evidence and arguments later. Cool suit of armor, sword, and aura. We have never come into conflict, but if we do, I'm sure it would be over something worth our time to resolve. -- Abd ( talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Your remarks at WP:RFAR seem to mischaracterize my position. Please strike them. I have never said that WP:UNINVOLVED is dead letter. The point I made is that the community has reviewed JzG's actions, and he enjoys a fair amount of support. Editors should not be sanctioned when they act in accordance with consensus. All of my remarks throughout have left open the possibility that JzG may have acted improperly. If that is the case, he should be corrected, and given a chance to see if he responds to feedback. To date, there has been no consensus established that he did wrong. Therefore, it is premature to resort to sanctions. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Or to put this another way, if local consensus renders WP:UNINVOLVED toothless then how is it not dead letter? Suppose local consensus at AE had given lukewarm support to Jossi's failure to disclose ten previous formal dispute resolution attempts with the person he was criticizing? The question is a theoretical one in light of subsequent events, but I don't regard that thesis as either practical or sustainable. Local consensus gets warped far too frequently by the POVs of the individuals who participate in it. If the worst that could happen to either Jossi or JzG for violation of WP:UNINVOLVED is a gentle pat on the shoulder and 'tut-tut, please don't do it again' (even with prior admonishment and subsequent arbitration), then the downside to deliberate abuse of the policy is too mild and distant, while the reward for abusing it successfully is immediate and substantial. Although our policies are deliberately malleable, we must take precautions against turning them into something so soft and circumstantially driven that the policies themselves are reduced to little more than pretext for political maneuvering. Durova Charge! 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
One very odd way to follow up on a wish to never interact with a person again, is to initiate threaded discussion with that person at RFAR and follow up by initiating a longer threaded discussion with that person at user talk. And initiating RFAR itself is a very strange variety of peacemaking. If peacemaking were the goal, wouldn't mediation be the better route? And if avoidance were the goal, wouldn't a rebuttal in evidence be simpler? I can't quite make out what he's getting at. Durova Charge! 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." - Yogi Berra Jehochman Talk 15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's one I dislike: "Jehochman's priorities about human dignity may be a little misplaced?"
I just came here to clear up the way you misrepresented my positions at WP:RFAR and you've turned this thread into a total mess, with assumptions of bad faith and attacks on my character and motives. As I said above, I grow tired of this. Every time I try to answer your questions, you ask another one and dredge up old diffs on an unrelated topic. Are you trolling me, or am I misunderstanding what's going on here? Jehochman Talk 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
One thing I endeavor to be is consistent: I had a thick skin as an administrator, and expect it of others. Jehochman had no need to come here. He should expect hard-hitting questions, especially while he considers himself justified in launching personal attacks against me (which I do not return). We are discussing potential principles to apply to the proposed arbitration case. What I want to know is whether these principles he asserts are universal principles, or whether some animals are more equal than others. Durova Charge! 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions..." |
Lillian Hellman, letter to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1952 |
(ec, reply to Abd) It's quite simple: if a fellow proposes that other people abide by a principle and expects to have any credibility at all, then he should be expected to follow that principle in his own actions. I haven't asked Jehochman for advice about how to weigh the proposed arbitration case. He came here uninvited and presumed to tell me what to do. He is welcome to his own opinions, of course, but having attempted to dictate mine that invited reminder of where and how he himself failed to follow those very ideas he expounds. A man's ideas can change over time; he might occasionally act out of character in an odd moment. Jehochman might have explained the shift or withdrawn the prior action; instead he calls the evidence of his own inconsistencies completely unrelated and likens that evidence to logical fallacy, which it is not. In a man with less education the discrepancy might be called accidental. Can we attribute good faith here? Is this really the sort of graduate Yale produces? Durova Charge! 20:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC) is glad she didn't apply there.
"CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin." |
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911 |
"Is this really the sort of graduate Yale produces? " <<--- That is a personal attack too. And what's with the quote about Christians? You know I am not Christian. What is that supposed to mean? Jehochman Talk 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I think you may find a lot of images at World digital library. I roughly went over a few and they seem to be HQ and potentially FPs. -- Muhammad (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
One thing that editors who restore images can do, is work with the people who negotiate with these archives. If you're interested, please let me know. [4] Durova Charge! 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that, besides our B'nai B'rith co-nom, you've only nominated one thing in the last week - that's very unusual for you. Is everything alright? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 05:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of Colin Jose sourced information as unreliable (Rangers and Celtics North American tours) see [5] [6] For less detailed information on Celtic's 1931 tour, see [7] Mohrflies ( talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. Please don't delete the link to the Ed Glazier site. I know it's on Geocities, but Glazier really is is an important Victor Herbert expert. He acts as a consultant to groups that wish to perform revivals of Herbert's works and helps them get performing materials, among other things. His site has a very useful discography and other useful info. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
nice work ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I found some more information about the Ty Cobb photo you restored. It is on the talk page if you are still interested. Rlendog ( talk) 19:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Hi
That can't be right. There are Wikipedias without any admins at all, and even disregarding the smaller Wikis, the Spanish Wikipedia has a lower ratio with 133 admins per 1,037,389 accounts compared to our 1,640 admins per 9,420,191 accounts. Even if you only consider active accounts they have a worse ratio (I don't know the number of active admins there).
Cheers,
Amalthea 08:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Durova. I found your essay about COI and am hoping you can help me. I happened upon this article and noticed that it reads like a résumé. I took a look at the talk page and page history, and it appears that the person about whom the article is written has made numerous edits off and on since February 2006. Based on the content of the user's talk page this person is at least somewhat aware of the COI guidelines. I am unsure whether this user's edits are "COI enough" to address. Any advice/opinion from you is greatly appreciated. Best regards, momoricks (make my day) 03:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If you like, I've prepared this to be a co-nomination. Another alternative might be to run it with a re-edit of your own, and let voters decide, or however you see fit. I really think this should be an FP, and I'm happy to support any edit that does not go "too extreme". Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FB%27nai_B%27rith&diff=284057884&oldid=284053883 <- I presume this is what you meant? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, on the subject of countering systemic bias: I'm currently attempting to get a heavily-illustrated Victorian edition of
Flavius Josephus, the 1st-century Jewish historian. I propose to do something similar with it to the recent Foxe's Book of Martyrs nom: Scan it all in, distribute the images as appropriate, and make new articles for any images we don't have an article to use in yet. Actually, it'll probably work out better there: In all honesty, I think Foxe's Book of Martyrs, while an interesting read for its historical context, is actually evil: It's main themes are 1. Catholics are evil. 2. How glorious and noble it is to die horribly at the hands of Catholics!
A good third of the martyrs he describes seem to be people who did nothing nobler than be incredibly rude to people they should have known better than to be incredibly rude to. And now they're exemplars of good behaviour.
Anyway, back to the point: Unlike Foxe, Flavius Josephus' work is a classic history and excellent primary source, so I'm inclined to put a lot more effort in. If you want, I'll give you warning before I start, so that you can help with any new articles. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Great post and edit summary! :D Acalamari 23:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:A big tip in Galveston2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Hi Durova,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Niagara rail 2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 20, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-04-20. howcheng { chat} 23:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you'd be willing to put together a WikiProject triple crown for the Video games project. Prolific WP:VG members with at least a standard crown include:
— Levi van Tine ( t – c) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you think we should nominate this at commons as well? They've been pretty receptive to engravings and lithographs of late. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Circumcision central Asia2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Just thought I'd quote you out of context. :-) Hi. Ben Aveling 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Er... was that wise, given what you linked to in the message to PM? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you already know about this, but on the off-chance that you don't... http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/
Cheers!
J.delanoy gabs adds 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of those edits are examples of what I discuss at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. People tried to grow an article on a concept with a list of examples of that concept in popular culture or in the news, in the hope that that would magically become an encyclopaedia article by accruing some mystical critical mass. They do that perhaps because they think that that's how encyclopaedia articles are written, based upon what they see elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. Bad articles are used as guidelines for new articles, or for article expansion. Yes, providing good content does tend to stop the bad content. That's true of all of the articles mentioned there, and many others besides. And yes, sometimes it takes years for someone to get around to it, or even to learn of the problem in the first place. See Niggerati ( AfD discussion), for example. (It's not necessarily a case of editors "not bothering", note.) Uncle G ( talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Aside from that specific instance, though, where the guideline itself encourages laundry listing, I'm not so certain the cargo cult thesis applies globally. What probably happened with Uncle Tom is that sensible editors didn't want to touch it; I didn't want to touch it. Every time it came up on the watchlist I gritted my teeth and decided 'No, too hot potato to touch.' Until finally, not being a particularly sensible person, I took the plunge anyway. A real article was no farther away than a trot through Google Books, which is why I say no one bothered. Maybe what Wikipedia needs is more motivational forces to bring the dreadful up to B-class: FAC is so politicized and cumbersome it's scarcely worth it. Last time I went through it one reviewer criticized the passive voice and suggested replacement text that actually was--you guessed it--also in passive voice. I rolled my eyes and cut and pasted the stuff in order to get the support, but why go back to a place filled with en-dash fetishists, while twenty percent of the national parks in Africa are redlinked? Durova Charge! 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've handled several hot potatoes in my time, with varying degrees of success. I mentioned Niggerati ( AfD discussion) above. Another such is Portrayals of God in popular media ( AfD discussion). And that, too, was an example of cargo-cult writing. See this version, which is nothing more than a list of examples, including an obligatory one from The Simpsons, put together in the hope that encyclopaedic analysis will magically arise. Jewish mother stereotype ( AfD discussion) is probably not such a hot potato, but this version, again, was mainly unsourced description and a laundry list of occurrences in popular media — yet another example of such cargo cult writing.
But, as I said, it's not necessarily a case of not bothering. I pointed out some reasons above. Here's another. Unfortunately, even if one does do that "trot through" some real sources, hot potato articles can result in reams of abuse. See English language names for Chinese people ( AfD discussion), where I was subjected to streams of outright personal attacks for stating that this and this were effectively the same article ("X is a name for a Chinese person. Some think it pejorative. Some not. Here's a laundry list of people who have got into hot water for using it.") under two different titles, and that instead of growing 22 duplicate articles synthesized from dictionaries and newspaper reports, we could have one, grown from existing scholarly analyses. I found some real sources who discussed the subject, and actually performed the analysis that would link isolated incidents together into a coherent discussion, from H. L. Mencken through Philip H. Herbst to Eric Partridge, and you can see the result in the AFD discussion: a torrent of abuse, that overwhelmed any actual discussion. One can understand neutral editors being reluctant to tackle such problem areas when they see what happens to others who have done. Uncle G ( talk) 13:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It has disappeared. -- MadameArsenic ( talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Durova, I was about to thank you for
The Birth of Virtue (a huge improvement over the better-known, salacious painting) but was aroused shocked to notice a nipple to the left. Could you please do something, anything to this? In the meantime, I'm off to take a cold shower. --
Hoary (
talk) 03:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I would not object in the least to reviewing and tightening up the references in the article; indeed, you highlighting the broken link lead to Zoe finding its replacement just now, so thank you for that. It would be helpful to have someone go over the remaining sources used, and where necessary, find further citations; there's no shortage of material around.
Bindel is a highly controversial figure; she's made a name for herself as a columnist by writing articles that, in some jurisdictions, would have her risking criminal charges for inciting hatred. She's also a controversial figure within the UK feminist and LGBT moments; while The Guardian has continued to give her a platform, she's been repeatedly slammed by Peter Tatchell (one of the most prominent gay activists in the UK) and no-platformed by the NUS Women's Campaign (probably the most significant young feminist organisation in Britain).
The problem with your suggested changes to the article, as I explained on the talk page, is that they don't refer to what Bindel actually said - they substitute your interpretation of what you think she meant. This greatly misrepresents both Bindel and the surrounding controversy, since if she had actually ditched the hate speech and worded it in the language you used, she would be not nearly the same lightning rod for controversy.
The secondary problem is that unwarranted assertions of BLP issues are being used to take relevant facts out of the article. Bindel's supporters (represented on the talk page by Benjiboi) attempt to portray the controversy around Bindel as something limited to a few angry trans people, as it can be much more easily dismissed that way. Benjiboi has been making some BLP allegations which simply don't stack up in order to try to take out any mention of Bindel's critics; for instance, in order to try and take out the NUS Women's Campaign reference, he claims - without any evidence - that "it would seem any interest group may be able to insert and get approved a position". He might be using claims of BLP as a shield, but it's still POV pushing. Rebecca ( talk) 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy... -- WebHamster 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Be aware that all the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery things should be linked here - I linked the Midsummer Night's Dream already. This is one of Awadewit's FAs, so I do think we should try and help out if we can =) The LoC has lots of images for it, in all sorts of bizarre places with them never all coming up in the same searches. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento ( talk · contribs) and Rumiton ( talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi ( talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.
For the Committee. MBisanz talk 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Easter egg roll boys2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Joan of Arc WWI lithograph2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk» 02:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
|
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
How can I contact you re. your blog & a possible story? Do you have an email addy?
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottydotdot ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's saved as an interlaced JPG. Change it to a progressive. I'd do it, but it ought to be posssible to do a lossless conversion. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't seen it, her new talk at TED might interest you since you are into crochet. Viriditas ( talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
There was already a visually more attractive one in article space, so haven't used this yet. Could be useful someday, though: I recorded the exact formula in the upload notes (our other hyperbolic planes don't have that data). Also did a Möbius strip. Durova Charge! 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Durova, there is a backlog at the Triple Crown nominations page, User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle/Nominations, of 13 nominations. I was going to work through the list myself, but then realized you haven't done much of the awarding process yourself lately and wanted to see if you felt like doing some? Let me know either way, and I'll help with it. Cirt ( talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
User talk:CIreland#Talk:Julie Bindel confirms what I had suspected. -- Banjeboi 16:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
May I respectfully suggest avoiding debating with other editors providing statements, including Jehochman, in the RfAr, it's really moot. ArbComm has voted overwhelmingly to accept the arbitration, it's essentially a done deal pending the 49-hour period, and appears to be ready to examine the behavior of all involved, interpreting that widely, per FloNight explicitly. I.e., the RfAr may be a honey-trap pulling in editors who may need a bit of trout-slap or more. Given that my goal is to keep it as simple as possible (which will probably be difficult to impossible), my comment to you here may discourage some from sticking their typographic feet in their metaphorical mouths, which is fine with me. My goal, initially, as expressed quite clearly (I'm amazed, looking back) on Jehochman Talk, where I first became aware of the problem, was to deal directly and cleanly with the single issue of administrative recusal. It turned out to be a much more tenacious problem than I expected would be likely, but I did realize that this might need to end up at ArbComm.
On the other hand, I'm quite willing to defer to your extensive experience. This is just a suggestion that you avoid wasting your time and the time of arbitrators with moot comment. Let the other side say whatever nonsense they like, it will merely rebound on them. As you know, there will be plenty of time for full presentation of evidence and arguments later. Cool suit of armor, sword, and aura. We have never come into conflict, but if we do, I'm sure it would be over something worth our time to resolve. -- Abd ( talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Your remarks at WP:RFAR seem to mischaracterize my position. Please strike them. I have never said that WP:UNINVOLVED is dead letter. The point I made is that the community has reviewed JzG's actions, and he enjoys a fair amount of support. Editors should not be sanctioned when they act in accordance with consensus. All of my remarks throughout have left open the possibility that JzG may have acted improperly. If that is the case, he should be corrected, and given a chance to see if he responds to feedback. To date, there has been no consensus established that he did wrong. Therefore, it is premature to resort to sanctions. Jehochman Talk 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) Or to put this another way, if local consensus renders WP:UNINVOLVED toothless then how is it not dead letter? Suppose local consensus at AE had given lukewarm support to Jossi's failure to disclose ten previous formal dispute resolution attempts with the person he was criticizing? The question is a theoretical one in light of subsequent events, but I don't regard that thesis as either practical or sustainable. Local consensus gets warped far too frequently by the POVs of the individuals who participate in it. If the worst that could happen to either Jossi or JzG for violation of WP:UNINVOLVED is a gentle pat on the shoulder and 'tut-tut, please don't do it again' (even with prior admonishment and subsequent arbitration), then the downside to deliberate abuse of the policy is too mild and distant, while the reward for abusing it successfully is immediate and substantial. Although our policies are deliberately malleable, we must take precautions against turning them into something so soft and circumstantially driven that the policies themselves are reduced to little more than pretext for political maneuvering. Durova Charge! 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
One very odd way to follow up on a wish to never interact with a person again, is to initiate threaded discussion with that person at RFAR and follow up by initiating a longer threaded discussion with that person at user talk. And initiating RFAR itself is a very strange variety of peacemaking. If peacemaking were the goal, wouldn't mediation be the better route? And if avoidance were the goal, wouldn't a rebuttal in evidence be simpler? I can't quite make out what he's getting at. Durova Charge! 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." - Yogi Berra Jehochman Talk 15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's one I dislike: "Jehochman's priorities about human dignity may be a little misplaced?"
I just came here to clear up the way you misrepresented my positions at WP:RFAR and you've turned this thread into a total mess, with assumptions of bad faith and attacks on my character and motives. As I said above, I grow tired of this. Every time I try to answer your questions, you ask another one and dredge up old diffs on an unrelated topic. Are you trolling me, or am I misunderstanding what's going on here? Jehochman Talk 16:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
One thing I endeavor to be is consistent: I had a thick skin as an administrator, and expect it of others. Jehochman had no need to come here. He should expect hard-hitting questions, especially while he considers himself justified in launching personal attacks against me (which I do not return). We are discussing potential principles to apply to the proposed arbitration case. What I want to know is whether these principles he asserts are universal principles, or whether some animals are more equal than others. Durova Charge! 18:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions..." |
Lillian Hellman, letter to the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1952 |
(ec, reply to Abd) It's quite simple: if a fellow proposes that other people abide by a principle and expects to have any credibility at all, then he should be expected to follow that principle in his own actions. I haven't asked Jehochman for advice about how to weigh the proposed arbitration case. He came here uninvited and presumed to tell me what to do. He is welcome to his own opinions, of course, but having attempted to dictate mine that invited reminder of where and how he himself failed to follow those very ideas he expounds. A man's ideas can change over time; he might occasionally act out of character in an odd moment. Jehochman might have explained the shift or withdrawn the prior action; instead he calls the evidence of his own inconsistencies completely unrelated and likens that evidence to logical fallacy, which it is not. In a man with less education the discrepancy might be called accidental. Can we attribute good faith here? Is this really the sort of graduate Yale produces? Durova Charge! 20:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC) is glad she didn't apply there.
"CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin." |
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911 |
"Is this really the sort of graduate Yale produces? " <<--- That is a personal attack too. And what's with the quote about Christians? You know I am not Christian. What is that supposed to mean? Jehochman Talk 05:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I think you may find a lot of images at World digital library. I roughly went over a few and they seem to be HQ and potentially FPs. -- Muhammad (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
One thing that editors who restore images can do, is work with the people who negotiate with these archives. If you're interested, please let me know. [4] Durova Charge! 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that, besides our B'nai B'rith co-nom, you've only nominated one thing in the last week - that's very unusual for you. Is everything alright? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 05:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of Colin Jose sourced information as unreliable (Rangers and Celtics North American tours) see [5] [6] For less detailed information on Celtic's 1931 tour, see [7] Mohrflies ( talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Durova. Please don't delete the link to the Ed Glazier site. I know it's on Geocities, but Glazier really is is an important Victor Herbert expert. He acts as a consultant to groups that wish to perform revivals of Herbert's works and helps them get performing materials, among other things. His site has a very useful discography and other useful info. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
nice work ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)