Jump to content

User talk:Gigs/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

[edit]

Pirate organization during the golden age of piracy

[edit]

I took out the last section ("Libertalia Lives On"). Other than that section, I believe most of the article is encyclopedic.Ashleyk123 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article would survive an AfD discussion at this point. It's not so much the content of the article as it is the lack of topic focus and the essay-like qualities, though the content of the article does seem to have some POV issues. Gigs (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Yeah, I was new to this, and I didnt really get that. But now I do and about Lower White River Wilderness, I`ll get on to fixing that right after I post this. Oh, this does not really have much to do with anything, but how did you get the Archives thing on your Talk Page? MetaCow (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You have to be really careful with the copyright stuff. To archive your talk page, use the "move" tab to move your talk page to a numbered archive subpage. So like, "User_talk:Gigs" to "User_talk:Gigs/Archive 1" Then go back to the talk page which is now a redirect (click the blue link in "redirected from" to get to the raw redirect), and change the redirect into {{archives}} which is the archive template like I have on my page. It will automatically pick up archives that are named "archive #". Gigs (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the help. MetaCow (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

[edit]

Tis the season

[edit]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

a thought

[edit]

Noting your comments to arbcom, I'd just ask you to consider one thing. Verifiability is fine - since it speaks to the quality of the information. However, even an unsourced statement may well be verifiable (even easily so), and a sourced statement may well be not (the source can be being misused or misinterpreted - even by someone in good faith). Yet, we remove unsourced negative material on sight - and there is no obligation on the person removing it to see if it can easily be verified. Why?

The answer is logically to do with Quality Control. If someone does enter false, biased, or misleading information into Wikipedian (and we know it happens), then the only hope we have is that another editor will check it and identify the problem. If the source is provided, then it is easier to check the information against the source, and spot any discrepancy. If the source is not provided, then, since it is harder to prove a negative and say the information can't be verified "somewhere" , we remove the information, whether true or false. We need sources not because sourced information is more likely to be true, but because sourced information is easier to check and problems are more likely to be sorted.

That metric should mean that online sources are preferred to off line ones - particularly for negative BLP claims. This is not because off-line sources are weaker. Self-evidently they are not. It is, however, because it is easier for us to operate our Quality Control of articles if it is easier for the non-speciality to access and validate the source.

I've not responded to this on the arbcom page, because it isn't actually relevant to the clarification Will is seeking.--Scott Mac 01:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Coming at it from the other end, we need some basic "rules of engagement" to make the Wiki format work for us. I see the ability to challenge and remove unsourced statements as a pragmatic compromise, rather than a direct quality control mechanism. The ability for any particular editor to verify is not necessary, since our policy takes the long view, that on the average, unsourced, invalid, claims will eventually be challenged by someone, and that invalid offline sources will eventually be ferreted out. That may sound like I'm advocating eventualism, but really, I'm saying that the core of our policies and our basic ground rules are ultimately eventualist, and must be, or we seriously compromise the ability to write an encyclopedia using the wiki format. Sourcing changes the assumptions to assumptions of validity, but they are still assumptions, subject to further evidence to the contrary.
That said, I'm a big believer in editorial discretion. The mere fact that something meets all our basic policies doesn't bind us to keep it. I view our policies as the minimum requirements for inclusion, not a bright line test for inclusion. If there's an outrageous and unlikely sounding claim sourced to an offline source, and the existence of the source doesn't even show up in Google, by all means lets nuke it. That sort of outcome should be the exception, however, not the rule. An assumption of validity is just that, an assumption. We shouldn't abandon our brains and let an assumption override everything. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes but. Generally, I am content with eventualism and incusionism. If the article on Disneyworld contains fraudulent mention of an non-existent ride, someone will quickly spot it and remove it. If an article on some obscure historical figure contains fraudulent mention of a false rape accusation, then again someone may (eventually) see it and know it isn't true. We may have bad information in articles at times, but our disclaimers cover us. But eventualism just does not work for living people. We MUST have systems that quickly remove bad material immediately. We must minimise the risk of unfair material being published. If someone can make a false claim on an obscure bio, and attribute it to a source that realistically no one is terrible likely to have easy access to, and we then say "oh well, assume good faith...". That really will not do. The more prejudicial the assertion, the more we realistically need to demand verification that we can actually use. Sure, most paper encyclopedias will prefer a published book to an on-line source, but more paper encyclopedia are not letting anyone edit anonymously, and relying on some random person to scrutinise the claims published. We need to be realistic about quality control here.--Scott Mac 15:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that comes down to a question of resources, rather than policy. And hundreds of thousands of stubs about obscure athletes and professors that no one has really written about elsewhere aren't helping the situation. That's why I started WP:TWOPRONGS. I haven't finished fleshing it out yet, but it's mostly there. Gigs (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

prod

[edit]

Hi: Regarding some of your AfD noms, I noticed that you haven't made any effort to Prod them. When you think it's open and shut, WP:PROD is a much easier way to get an article deleted. Cheers, RayTalk 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should prod more. Was there any one in particular that you thought was a good candidate for prod? Gigs (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Rubenstein came to mind - recent, poorly referenced bio, no previous prod effort. Of course, that one is also a pain in the neck to search for references for, given how common the name is. RayTalk 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe prod would be better. There's already comments from editors who can't differentiate between the output of a subject and coverage of the subject. Gigs (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Jeferson Douglas dos Santos Batista

[edit]

Hello Gigs. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jeferson Douglas dos Santos Batista, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a borderline case. Thanks for letting me know. Gigs (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree! I looked at it about three times over a space of time, as I was unsure. The thing that tipped it towards keeping was the fact that he appears to have played a match - if he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, someone can always PROD or AfD it -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 10:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

state senators

[edit]

There are always available sources on state senators and house members. It's in my opinion, inappropriate to prod them as blpprod without even looking. (re. Tom Carney ) I know it is possible that there might be a false claim, but I have never seen any for the US, since it is so easy to check, but I agree they do need checking DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP PROD is as much about sending the original contributor a message as it is about getting them sourced. If we lose a one sentence stub in the process, it's no big loss. I'm not sure we should have articles on every state level politician in the first place. Most of them are part-time jobs. Gigs (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism.

[edit]

There seems something very odd to some of us about you and some of your pals seemingly only going on line to check the items you are so keen on revising or deleting. Do you ever go to a library? There is nothing wrong with being an arbiter of truth and/or taste but some of us think the public ought to make up their own minds. J.S. Mill was far smarter than most of us but even he appears to be the kind of writer you would love to be the subject of your revisionism. Perhaps you should read what is set out below and argue publicly why you think he is wrong?

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."StrabismusII (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, are you talking about? Gigs (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

[edit]

I agree. And if you need help killing it, I'll help hold the stake. Just let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]

Re: Mistagged BLP Cleanup Barnstar

[edit]

Thanks so much!! Know I need to get back into BLPs in general again--the last couple of days have been "Perry Como" ones-promised to work out a split of one of the pages. Am still checking, re-checking, etc. from that. :-) Glad to know the list is done and that aspect of the BLP work is over! Thanks again!! We hope (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated :) Acather96 (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Gigs. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
Message added 17:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Christmas Card

[edit]
File:Wikisanta-no motto.png
Merry Christmas
At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Green and Yellow Present.gif
File:Yellow and Red present.gif
File:Blue and Red Present.gif

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

[edit]

Thank you, thank you, thank you

[edit]
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your idea of effort of putting up the UBLP watchlist notice. Over 5,000 UBLPs have been removed in the past month!
Regards, The-Pope (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see it's working too. Thanks! Gigs (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The effect before and after is pretty clear, although maybe the slowdown from about Jan 3 shows that after a month on the watchlist, it starts to be ignored. The-Pope (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Contact OTRS

[edit]

Wikipedia:Contact OTRS, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Contact OTRS and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Contact OTRS during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mhiji 22:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • May I advise you that the main issue with this page is that it increases the OTRS volunteers' workload exponentially by providing users with direct access to email when they could be able to resolve their own problems? WP:CONTACT is structured in such a way to offer users the opportunity to resolve issues for themselves, as well as to filter queries that OTRS can't or won't deal with, but where emailing is the right response to an issue the email address is presented within two clicks. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Copies

[edit]

Template:Copies has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

Online Ambassador selection process

[edit]

Hi Gigs. I just wanted to let you know that an on-wiki process for Online Ambassador applications is active now: Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Apply. We'll see how things go; if it doesn't show signs of turning into the kind of toxic atmosphere of RfA, maybe it will make sense to have the on-wiki method be the only one.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gigs (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on date delinking case amendment

[edit]

Hi Gigs. Are you particularly involved in the date delinking case? At Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom, Tony1 seems to have characterised your response as among "bad-faith comments from the peanut gallery". Ohconfucius noted "You should let these characters post to Wikipedia Review. The comments might have been worth reporting had they been independent and not clouded in prejudice out of some ancient grievance. As it stands, they are not; not in the slightest." I had hoped some evidence would be provided to substantiate both of these comments, but none has been provided so far. Consequently, it would be ideal if you could shed some light there. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "ancient" grievance with Lightmouse. I only encountered him somewhat recently through my watchlisting of MOSNUM's talk. At the time I noticed him, he was violating his prior sanctions using AWB, and in my opinion, dealing very poorly with complaints about his semi-automated editing actions. That's what put him on my radar. I had no prior history with him. I filed an amendment request in response to those events, and in response to Lightmouse's many open BRFAs, asking arbcom to bar him from all automated actions entirely. Arbcom let the request expire without action. I hold no ill-will toward Lightmouse on a personal level, and I hope that he does continue to operate any automated tasks responsibly, and take complaints seriously. Gigs (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to work on a possible RfC/U

[edit]

I am working on a potential RfC/U about User:Geo Swan. The draft is located at User:Fram/Sandbox. I have used a discussion where you were involved as part of the evidence, and would like to invite you to go over the draft RfC and add or correct whatever you feel is necessary. Obviously, if you feel that an RfC/U is not appropriate or not the best step to take, feel free to let me know as well. Fram (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

Kinetic discussion....

[edit]

Dear Mr. Gigs, I am Sorry for commenting on Dream Focus issues at his user page, but it calls me the attention that he might not be of great help on this. Now, I feel so frustrated for the fact that Mr. Hairhorn has been all times to keep away my definition on Kinetic Architecture because he wants his own one. His definition needs more depth into the architecture vocabulary and that is why I redefined it in more depth. I searched at Encyclopedia Britannica and ask them to see if there is any definition on Kinetic Architecture and they send me a message saying that there is no such word registered there. Also it is difficult to find more information on the theme as we are few people who have been experimenting on Kinetic Architecture, personally, I am on an experimenting project I denominated as "The Arkinetic House" which has more depth and complex systems where the house changes constantly, rotates and displace in multiple directions depending on needs. I created a MDS Multiple Displacement of Structure, which is a system that permits the multiple positions,etc of most of the elements of the building and making it to change constantly. That is why the latest definition I wrote yesterday for Kinetic Architecture is as follows: Kinetic Architecture : Ancient Greek κινητικός (kinētikos, "one who puts in motion") Architecture: Greek ἀρχιτέκτων – arkhitekton, from ἀρχι- "chief" and τέκτων "builder, carpenter, mason"). Is an architectural design concept where a building is transforming, moving or changing by the use of natural or unnatural sources through technological innovations. The use of robotics, mechanics and electronics are being better known as new approaches into its architectural possibilities.

Tell me is trying to define it with my own words is something wrong? someone said that everything we write on wikipedia has to be with online sources,etc. The fact is that few real sites mentions projects that moves,etc. I did searched on etymology on Kinetic and Architecture combining both and that is how I defined yesterday. Let me know if you are ok with the definition or if you want to change anything on it.

On the other hand, I will keep saying that I was the creator of " Arquitectura Kinetica" because it was created in Spanish language way back 2009 when I was experimenting on moving objects applied to architecture buildings. The circumstances on that time 1989 made me to really believe that I created it. There was no internet in that time and no books on the theme at least in Colombia, South America, otherwise the term was unknown and that is why I keep saying I did created the design concept since 1989. I just knew that in 1970 a professor of virginia university wrote a book on that title, but was not known every where. I am contacting professor Roger Clark at NC University, he was co-writer with Professor Zuk on that book and see if he can give me a hand on my research.

The first time I mentioned to Mr. hairhorn that I was the creator of the design concept, then he started to go against my definition and I do feel he is kind of persecuting me on each time I try to redefine the theme or so. I studied architecture 1982-1987 and went to Yale University 2000-2001 to do a research on Traditional architecture of New England, also I went to college 2007-2008 to study environmental systems and that made me to keep enduring my experimental project on kinetics to make it runs on renewable energy.

Thanks for reading this and I am willing to hear from you soon.kitaro

Your Message To Me

[edit]

If you're going to leave threatening comments on my talk page about removing some content you are the owner of, perhaps you should also link to that content in question so I know what you are talking about? Honestly, without you leaving me a clue, it's hard to make constructive use of your request. Thanks! 76.22.32.86 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

User:Gigs/Two prongs of notability

[edit]

I just want to compliment you on User:Gigs/Two prongs of notability. It seems like such common sense that it needn't even be said but you put it very well. Pity so many would disagree. Take care J04n(talk page) 19:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll probably move it to a mainspace essay sometime soon. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, ethnicity, gender

[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Last year, you commented on a proposal to add ethnicity. By strict count, there was enough support, and no reason that it was abandoned; perhaps being overtaken by events.... I'm re-proposing the same, plus gender, to match all other guidelines.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

Re: Harbans Jandu

[edit]

Hi fellow editor. Harbans Jandu is one of the biggest names in the Bhangra scene with thousands of songs written in his career and millions of alums sold worldwide. His songs have been included in films like Bhaji on the Beach by Gurinder Chaddha. To delete it, on the basis of some comment on facebook, if befuddling to say the least. To re-add the deltion despite another rreference being added from an ISBN source is even more befuddling. The problem with Bhangra artisits is that most of the referenced material is written in Punjabi, and magazine articles from such English magazine not available on the net. Nevertheless, the article contains 5 references. Here is an external ink to Bhangra music. Thanks--SH 13:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

Your Third opinion at Talk:Bash (Unix shell)

[edit]

You were kind enough to step in to offer a Third opinion about the use of some language from the GNU website in the Bash (Unix shell) article. Unfortunately, it did not resolve the disagreement the way I expected and the other editor has complained at WP:AN3.

As the Third opinion, I wonder if you would care to comment. It's possible I screwed up. Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling good faith edits vandalism is a bad idea. I'd rather not get further involved at this point, I'm sure you guys can work it out. Gigs (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I accept that was wrong and posted apologies both on the AN3 page and on the other editor's talk page. I've been using the term far too loosely and will correct my behavior. I'm still learning and still making mistakes. I appreciate your help and feedback. Msnicki (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

Incubation project issue

[edit]

Gigs, you might be interest in this: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Use_of_incubation_outside_stated_guidelines. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

Bounty Board

[edit]

Hi I saw your comment on the BB deletion? page. I agree it's a good idea and voted keep too. But you wrote that it petered out, and it looks like you're right. Wondering what your thought is about this. See, I was wondering about this. I like writing articles and posting pictures that I choose -- stuff that interests me. Suppose someone wants me to write something that they're interested in -- I'm willing to do it IF they contribute to Wikimedia. But it looks like the BB thing doesn't work well (lack of interest). Suppose I use the concept like this -- someone contacts me and says Tom, please write about subject X. I say: okay, mail me a check for such-and-such an amount, but make out the check to Wikimedia Foundation. I get the check in the mail. Then I write/improve -- whatever they want. And I indicate on the article's discussion page that this is why I'm doing it. Last, I mail the check to WM foundation. Would people be cool with this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it would be fine. It's controversial to take money for editing, but I don't see any problem with donating to WMF. I would say under limited circumstances, people would even be OK with direct compensation, as long as it was a task that didn't involve a potential conflict of interest or POV pushing. Gigs (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your feedback. That's the sense I have -- another editor calls it "editing for donations". --Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work aversion

[edit]

It wasn't a merge, it was a redirect. "Work aversion" doesn't exist, there's nothing to merge. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you think "work aversion" does not exist, or you don't want it to. The consensus, sources, and 3 afds have shown otherwise. Your personal dislike of the article and yours alone are not an acceptable reason for defying this consensus. Hellno2 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It exists the same way that "bean aversion" or "broccoli aversion" exists. It's not a meaningful topic for an encyclopedia article. Gigs (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed several sources that were completely inappropriate or simply didn't support the claim they were tied to. Gigs (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

FAQ

[edit]

Just a note to say that I really like this change that you made to WP:RS's FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gigs (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gigs/Archive_10&oldid=1141783471"