User talk:Valley2city/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Homepage	Talk	Contributions	Sandbox	Administrivia

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #271

Wikipedia Signpost

Promotion too soon?

The notability guideline may have been promoted too soon. I agree that it's a nice idea but may not solve anything.

The prose of the guideline is very nice in theory, but will it work in practice? The way to find out is to test a few recent examples and see how it holds up.

One recent event is Mr. and Mrs. Salahi's uninvited attendance at a reception prior to a state dinner. News? Tabloid news? Encyclopedic? All 3 articles have been subject to an AFD (Mr. Salahi, Mrs. Salahi, and a Wikipedia self titled event "2009 White House gatecrashing incident"). How does the guidelines handle this? Wikipedia has a "other crap exists" but having a practical list of what is and is not notable for comparison (and incorportated into the guideline may help).

I've mentioned this and it hasn't been addressed before. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Suomi. I think that the case you bring is a good example to test against the rubric of the new guideline. This case has received sufficient media coverage to merit an article. However I think this just applies to the case itself, meaning the article 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Also, though Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the Secret Service has announced that they will be using this case as a precedent for future security. I don't think that Mr. and Mrs. Salahi merit their own articles in this case, just a redirect and significant coverage in the aforementioned article. Whether they merit their own articles under a different criterion of notability, I do not know. BLP is different than WP:EVENT and they have other things going on besides the party crashing. In my humble opinion, the article passes my litmus test for inclusion on wikipedia and not just a Wikinews article.

This guideline is brand new and will take time for getting used to and to hammer out any ambiguous wording, etc. The consensus for promotion was quite clear beyond any doubt (3 weeks of discussion led to almost unanimous support) and is viable which is why I granted it guideline status. I hope this answers your question, though note that this is just my opinion weighing in here. Valley2city^‽ 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion, I brought up the same topic before (guideline is nice but is it possible that specific discussion of articles might help the guideline). This was not opposed but there really wasn't much discussion either.

I was trying to be polite and not bold (Wiki-bold), so I didn't change the proposed guideline language.

This is a Wikipedia process problem. If I change it now, it will be reverted citing need for discussion. If discussed, it will just get a few comments and not enough for consensus. If I challenge the whole guideline, it will be disruption.

The easiest solution is if you would un-do your action and then I will propose specific language. I think if we have specific examples (can be decided by consensus), then we can have a list of sample borderline notable and borderline non-notable so all future new articles can be compared to that list. This is not unheard of as John Hinckley is cited as a notable example in the Wikipedia rules (policy or guideline?) even though it says that most murderers do not qualify. Would you consider this action? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, Suomi, but having the guideline itself in its present form had already reached clear consensus which was the reason I promoted it in the first place. I don't see any reason to retract the promotion. I would look at the information on Wikipedia:Guidelines, particularly the sections Wikipedia:Guidelines#Content changes and Wikipedia:Guidelines#Adherence as to how to make changes to the guideline. Personally I think the talk page discussion is your best option, however as it says in the information about guidelines,

Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.

As to the example you've given of John Hinckley, Jr., the long lasting effects of his assassination attempt and his continued news coverage make it clear to me that he merits an article. A more recent example of Amanda Knox (link to discussion on BLP noticeboard), however, would not at this time, except for inclusion as a section in Murder of Meredith Kercher. So I suggest you continue the discussion on the talk page of the guideline and see what comes of it. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 17:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

.

RfA thankspam

Hello, Valley2city! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Original productions"

"Original" means "belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something, or to a thing at its beginning." The first productions of Joseph throughout the 1970s had a male narrator; therefore, the original productions had a male narrator. Hope that's helpful. :) Softlavender (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah cool, thanks. Maybe it would be clearer if it said "originally" as opposed to "original production" as original sometimes doesn't really mean original. Valley2city^‽ 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

Can you purge my userpage please-Reconsider! 05:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say "purge"? Purging refers to reloading the page from scratch, but I'm not sure that is what you mean. Are you asking me to delete your user page so you can start it anew? Thanks Valley2city^‽ 05:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete and start anew -Reconsider! 05:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What program do you use for the internet? There's a different way for each one. You can check at WP:Purge for the possibilities. (edit conflict) Okay, I'll speedy delete it for you. Valley2city^‽ 05:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've CSD:U1ed your user page. You can recreate it now from scratch if you want. Valley2city^‽ 06:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -Reconsider! 06:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sonofagun...

...you are absolutely correct re. that block. I checked that user's first creation of the article and doggoned if he didn't try to tag it as a copyvio; must have been that stupid glitch in the software which sometimes credits innocent users with the creation of nonsense when all they're doing is trying to help. I'll remove the block immediately. Thank you SO much for pointing that out to me. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You know that merited a trout, though. Valley2city^‽ 03:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Hoo boy, did I deserve the taste of trout sushi in my mouth more than ever! Shrinking into the background now... --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely out of curiosity...

I tagged an article for speedy deletion for blatant vandalism, "Gina fuchs", and I noticed you deleted it "per CSD G10, page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or someone else."

I was just wondering, why did you delete it for something other than vandalism? Surely you recognized the vandalism in "Gina fuchs is a 13 year old monkey"?--Swarm^Talk 08:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Really it's both. While Gina fuchs is obviously blatant vandalism, it is more appropriately classified as an attack page. I don't want to recreate the content of the particular attack page, but I will say that it was obvious by both the original post as well as when the vandal reverted your CSD-G3 tag the first time and added more information that indicated that it only existed to disparage the subject, which is why Glenfarclas retagged the page as CSD-G10 Attack Page (an action which also automatically blanks the page so any user won't as easily stumble on the attack page). Also, pages marked as attack pages tend to get taken care of more quickly than other speedy deletions and literally send a red flag to administrators. See my my administrative dashboard, the first entry under "Immediate Requests" is "Attack Pages for speedy deletion" and if it turns red (meaning there are one or more pages on Wikipedia tagged as attack pages) then it is the first place I will patrol. I hope this helps clarify. If it's about a person and it has uncited negative information that could be construed as an attack I would tag as G10 over G3. If you have any more questions feel free to ask. Meanwhile, keep up the great work in counter-vandalism! Cheers, Valley2city^‽ 08:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it! I just rolledback that edit when I saw they removed the speedy deletion template, so I didn't even pay attention to the actual edit they made. On top of that, I wasn't even aware that it had been changed to G10 in the first place (I only noticed that it had been deleted for that reason.) Anyway, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the information and the quick response!--Swarm^Talk 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi Valley: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the discussions leading up to this ArbCom case and presented evidence you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)