This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Not to start an edit war, but your reapplying of that spam isn't a way to improve things. Tedickey ( talk) 10:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's spam. They're references supporting the genealogical facts asserted in the text, which I suppose are of interest to some readers. I neither know nor care who owns the site, or what relationship Pres-scholar may have with it, but unless you give a solid reason why they should not be in the articles I will go on reinserting them. Merely calling something spam doesn't make it so. -- Zsero ( talk) 10:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I now see you're claiming that "on review" the site "is not a reliable source". Any particular reason for that conclusion? -- Zsero ( talk) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure - reading the charts closely, and recalling similar data on rootsweb, etc., I have a strong impression that the primary source (not given there) are unreliable sources such as rootsweb. (Do some reading and correlation on rootsweb, and you'll come to the same conclusion - the editors of that material routinely "fix" dates and names to provide connections which cannot be sourced reliably). By the way, the chart is copyright without giving a list of permissions - not something that one would want to quote from extensively. Tedickey ( talk) 12:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright isn't an issue; facts can't be copyright. And if they're not facts then we shouldn't be citing them at all :-) Is there some previous discussion of rootsweb, showing its unreliability, or are you suggesting I just root around there, so to speak, and I'll find a bad odour? -- Zsero ( talk) 12:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The latter (I'm citing my experience in finding google hits that point there, and finding that the data are tainted). You should become familiar with it, and similar sources. Regarding "facts" - some of the linkages are interpretations (lacking a cite in those charts to explicit external sources, you are not able to gauge which are factual, and which are research). Tedickey ( talk) 12:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, so long as it's honest research. -- Zsero ( talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does. For instance, if pres-scholar happened to be the researcher, WP's policy wouldn't permit that. (I'm more concerned that the facts aren't supported - and for myself would not incorporate any of that unless I could support it with a separate reliable source). Tedickey ( talk) 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It is taken from http://www.chabad.org/special/rebbetzin/marriage.html (linked from the special web presentation section of [1]). According to this site, it was taken in Purkersdorf, Austria. I think it can still be used with Template:Non-free fair use in. Chocolatepizza ( talk) 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask R Raichik when I see him. Gavhathehunchback ( talk) 07:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry about the hassles, was just trying to fix some vandalism and didn't realise I add some back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord of Haha ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed you reverted the edit about Mr Bush winning a train race as an 8 year old. It was properly cited, shows his human side as a normal kid and describes a time that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. What some consider trivial may be considered worthwhile to others. As a learning experience, I would be interested in which Wikipedia policies and guidelines that edit violated. Thanks. Truthanado ( talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In a shorter article, about a less notable person, I'd probably have left it; but GWB has done many things in his life, and this has to be among the most trivial of all. It's simply not encyclopaedic to include it in such an article. If there were enough significant material about his early life to justify an article just on that subject, then this might well be appropriate for that article. -- Zsero ( talk) 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the phot on James Rogers?( Lookinhere ( talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

1. It's not an image of him, it's not even his grave, it's just a plaque that some historical society put up recently.
2. It took up the whole damn page.
3. It's in the refs.

-- Zsero ( talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have just moved it further down the page to mak a contribution rather than rudly deleting it.( Lookinhere ( talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

It didn't belong where it was. If you want to put it lower down, as a thumb, be my guest, but I had no obligation to do so. -- Zsero ( talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Much better, I am trying to get rights to a drawing by Gary Zaboly , owned by my cousin, Robert J. Rogers for his photo.( Lookinhere ( talk) 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

• R. J. Rogers just had surgery so it could be a while ( Lookinhere ( talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

I know what your thinking, because it happens a lot I'm learning. But no, I'm not some wild-ass Christian trying to remove a picture. I'm trying to find the source for it (like I said, I've ruled out two of them). The thing about that picture is that it claims to come from a "British Museum", but which one? If it was a picture that was taken by a wikipedia editor, then surely he or she knows what museum it came from! But it doesn't specify where it came from. Thats why the tags are there, clearly we have a picture of questionable origin. I'm not removing it, I'm trying to find where it came from so that we can get the museum's story behind it (which would be MUCH better than the story some random person writes for it, i.e. "probably". Just relax, if you want to help find the source, then just start searching, all I'm asking for is that we cite the material. Paladin Hammer ( talk) 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a British museum; The British museum. Nothing questionable about that. -- Zsero ( talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The incident is notable firstly in regards that it goes directly against Cheney's image and public perception- "Cheney, who had been typecast as being "aloof" during most of the campaign was remarkably lively during his visit to Chicago where he rode the L, danced the polka, served attendees kielbasa with stuffed cabbage and addressed a cheering crowd"

From the NYTimes:

Dick Cheney danced the polka with a Polish beauty queen, spoke a little Polish and dished out a few plates of kielbasa and stuffed cabbage in Chicago yesterday. Mr. Cheney, whose campaign style has sometimes been described as aloof...

At the festival, he greeted the crowd in Polish. Sto lat, Mr. Cheney said, or May you live 100 years. Then he spoke about his role as the secretary of defense under President George Bush. We were proud to work with all of you to help bring down the wall and free the peoples of Eastern Europe, he said, to applause.

Famous incidents from the campaign belong here, and if you feel strongly about taking out this section then it should be decided with input from others than just yourself-- Orestek ( talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cheney is after all typecast as a dark Darth Vader figure in the public perception, The fact that there are incidents where the man showed some panache is notable-- Orestek ( talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if the article first establishes this dark image in the first place, so that it needs to offset it. Better not to mention it at all, since it isn't true. Noting one time that he behaved like a normal campaigner just reinforces the idea that it was unusual, and implies that for the rest of the campaign he was dour and surly, which just doesn't match reality. If you need some more detail on the campaign, surely the vice-presidential debate, in which both candidates put in performances that put their running mates to shame, is far more noteworthy.

In any case, why is the stuff about Lieberman, and the campaigns almost-but-not-quite crossing paths, even mildly interesting? Politicians on the same campaign trail will always be hitting the same venues at similar times. And why delete the sentence about the Florida cliffhanger, which is genuinely noteworthy? -- Zsero ( talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed "defeatism" to "criticism" and you reverted. Fine -- but I'm unable to parse your explanation from yesterday: "sometimes it is. it's pov so to characterise this instance." from Woodrow Wilson -- ScottJ ( talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You changed it because you claimed that "defeatism" is just propaganda-speak for "criticism". Sometimes that is so. But to claim that it was so in this instance is POV. You did not cite a basis for claiming that when Wilson said "defeatism" he didn't mean exactly that. Defeatism is certainly not a null concept, and it's definitely damaging, however much its threat is also used as a cover for fending off legitimate criticism. -- Zsero ( talk) 01:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"why use a $2 word when a 50c word will do?" Not everyone is American, some of us like to read English. May I just ask how old you are because from the comments you're making you sound very young. I'm not getting into an editing war with you over one word. 82.18.225.109 ( talk) 13:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Currently" is no better a word than "now". It's just longer. And very much more American. -- Zsero ( talk) 02:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How childish. 82.18.236.205 ( talk) 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was no notice of this given at the pages where it's linked? How was anybody supposed to know that it was proposed for deletion? Please restore the image and notify affected parties so people can dispute it, or correct whatever's wrong with it. It's completely unfair that images suddenly disappear before anyone has a clue there's an issue. (If the issue here was the lack of a fair use rationale, then you should have taken into account that when it was uploaded there was no such requirement. When was anyone supposed to have added one?) -- Zsero ( talk) 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored it, please remember to remove the tag after you've added a rationale. Melesse ( talk) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest the edits don't look necessary and to me they give the article an unnecessarily cold tone, but may that's what you mean by Wikifying it! At a brief look through, I can't see any changes that make it wrong or have lost significant meaning, so I won't argue the toss over it. Regarding references, it is generally all factual information known to me, but if there are specific facts that you feel would be much better with third-party references cited, let me know which they are and I'll see what I can do.

Incidentally, your revised version doesn't appear when I just go to the article itself, but does when I look at its revision history - is there a time delay or approval process that delays the appearance of the edited page? I only ask because I previously had the impression that edits appear immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgray ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an encylopaedia, not story time. Encyclopaedias report in a neutral tone, don't refer to their subjects by their nicknames, and don't twaddle on about trivia. Have a look at a few featured articles to see how they're written. Or have a read of the Manual of Style, and in particular the Biography section and you'll see what sort of thing we're looking for on Wikipedia.

And just about everything significant needs sources. "Factual information known to you" is not enough; we, the readers, don't know who you are or how reliable you are. If he's important enough to be in an encyclopaedia (and from your biography he certainly seems to be) he must have been written up somewhere, perhaps in newspaper articles or in professional publications. His awards must have been mentioned somewhere, as well as what they were for. If he's so prestigious then any of his colleagues who've published memoirs probably mention him. And of course if he's published anything himself that should go in. Basically anything that will tell us this person really existed and really is famous in his field, because most of us are not power generation engineers, and will never have heard of him until we read the article, so we need to know it's not all made up.

About the new version of the page not showing up, try refreshing the page (F5 on most browsers). It could be that your browser has the old version in its cache and is serving that up to you. -- Zsero ( talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mind addressing on the talk pages the edit war you seem to be getting into? Lets all hash this out together in the old fashioned wiki way shall we? Tirronan ( talk) 00:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything like an edit war. We all seem to be working to improve the article, and taking each other's points on board. I'm not sure whether there's any actual difference of opinion that needs discussion. -- Zsero ( talk) 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to discuss it some and cite it some ok? Tirronan ( talk) 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite what? There aren't any factual disputes that I'm aware of. We're just refining the language in which the facts are expressed, step by step. If there are any substantive disagreements, by all means raise them on the talk page, but so far I don't see what there is to discuss. -- Zsero ( talk) 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my mistake, I looked at the infoboxes of the people that were added and saw they weren't born in Indiana and didn't think to look any further. We could always take a long running vote (say a couple of weeks or so) and ask people to come up with the 25 most notable hoosiers. Just a thought. HoosierState ^Talk 23:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction about Operation Texas not being in LBJ's administration. I'm from the UK, so didn't know administration was specifically refring to time as a president (thought it could be used as a general term for "political job", kind of thing!). So, thanks again. I've corrected that and removed the speculation from the section I added; hope it looks ok now. Thanks. -- Woofboy ( talk) 10:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(Your revert at Pride and Prejudice article of 18:21, 30 March 2008). Sir: I disagree with your characterizing my edits as "too cute"; my edit-work, here and elsewhere, has been always in good faith. Will you please do me the favor of explaining what you mean by "too cute", and which edit(s) you find thus? Thank you.

-- Jbeans ( talk) 10:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I said exactly what it was that I found too cute. -- Zsero ( talk) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why you keep changing one sentence on Nikki's page? At the end of the day does it really matter who he's dating, maybe it should be cut altogether. It's not really relevant is it? INXS-Girl ( talk) 11:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the "personal life" section; if he's in a relationship that's pretty much the most significant thing about his personal life. Also, people kept adding this before there was any confirmation, and I kept removing it because it was unverifiable. So now that there's finally a reliable source available I want to keep it there. I've removed the Vanity thing, since it doesn't seem to be reliable. We have to be careful with BLP not to say things we can't be sure are true. -- Zsero ( talk) 15:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In what way are all American police officers killed in the line of duty murdered? The majority die in traffic accidents - that is not murder! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede that not all police officers who are murdered are killed in the line of duty (although most are), but it's certainly not true that all those killed in the line of duty are murdered and it should not therefore be a subcat. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then neither one is a subcat of the other, and those murdered in the line of duty should be in both. I've added the "Line of Duty" cat to all entries in the "Murdered" cat, except those who were not murdered in the line of duty. -- Zsero ( talk) 14:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Pocceschi (2nd nomination). Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Just giving a !vote with no rationale behind it has no weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. I know it's not a vote, but consensus is formed, at least in part, by the number of voices expressing their opinions, even if they don't all make speeches. I had nothing particularly earthshattering to add to what had already been said; why should I repeat other people's arguments just for the sake of adding to the word count? -- Zsero ( talk)

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure if you knew already. A "per nom" probably would have been better though -- I just can't stand people who give a vote with no reasoning (although I can understand why you did that). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that a separate detailed rationale is needed for each use. Check this image for an example.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just silly; the two articles are closely-enough related that the same rationale applies to both. WP is not a bureaucracy; common sense trumps rules every time. -- Zsero ( talk) 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the image's page. Feel free to look at it as an example of how according to policy, if a non-free/fair use image is used multiple times, it needs to have separate detailed rationales. If you need any help with image related policies, feel free to ask me.-- Rockfang ( talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to consider whether it makes any sense to duplicate the rationale just because it appears on two pages, when the same reasons apply with equal force to both. Feel free to consider that WP does not exist to make busywork, and common sense always trumps rules. That people bother to jump through such hoops and insist that others do the same is contrary to what WP stands for, and I for one refuse to do so. -- Zsero ( talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)