User talk:Bbb23/Archive 2

Suppressing donation banner

Thanks for the tip on suppressing the donation banner.--Larssl (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Violation?

Hiya! That twiztv site looks like a pretty clear copyvio to me. There is nothing about the contents being authorized by the copyright holders, which would be the first thing to look for. On the contrary on their about page[1] they say they archive scripts available "on the web", which is likely to run into WP:RS issues as well, since there's no verifying that the original source transcribed them correctly. You may want to ask over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but this looks pretty clear cut to me.

Is the show out on DVD? In that case it should be possible to just reference the episodes directly without WP:V issues. I'm not sure of the best/common practice here though. And yeah, I think wikipedia editors deciding on what is a running gag based solely on the primary source material might be a WP:OR issue, but again I'm not sure what's the best course of action here. It would probably be easier to deal with if you could find some secondary sources and use those, but that might be easier said than done. Maybe you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television if they have any suggestions. Siawase (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Siawase. The only action I've taken so far is to remove the Twiz TV sources. It's nice to be able to source something, but they're just too dicey. I'll leave the text in with the quotes for the moment, and I'll try to raise this in a broader forum, not sure which yet. I don't think the copyright forum is right because they're undoubtedly going to confirm what you and I already think, that it's a violation. The television project may be too narrow because this is really something that cuts across different media. I'll have to think a little more.

To answer your question, the show is out on DVD. How would that help, though? How does someone reference them if they're on DVD? It still requires an editor to watch and report on what he or she sees.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll just reply here then. :) Well, citing television material that is not published outside of the original airing might go against WP:V. I've ran into this working on the Lohan article when I wanted to reference what she said on some talkshows, but it wouldn't be possible for other editors to verify the material (outside of copyright infringing access through youtube etc in the case it happens to be on there.) But since That 70s Show is out on DVD, you should be able to just use Template:Cite episode and reference the episodes directly, replacing the Twiz TV cites. For the direct quotes it shouldn't be an issue. Anyone can obtain the DVD and verify what was said. It's more the interpretation of patterns etc that gets complicated with WP:OR (ie, determining what is and what isn't a recurring catch phrase, or which catch phrases are significant enough to include in the article.) The television project might have dealt with similar issues in the past, which is why I thought they might be able to help. Siawase (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I do name the season and the episode, which at least allows someone to verify the quote if they wish by looking at the DVD. I'll consider adding the template (thanks). I agree that editor interpretation matters much more than just saying what is in an episode. I'm leaning against bringing this up somewhere else. Our discussion has helped me think this through enough so I think I can reach a comfort level without seeking more input.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy I was able to help some, these types of issues can get pretty thorny. Good luck with the article! Siawase (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback ping! ;) I replied to you on my talk page. Siawase (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

About the bot

Hello, I've read your inquiry about the bot including a talk page banner of Latin America about a person who's not from Latin America. What happened was that I made a request to include all tags of Latin America under Category:Latin music. As a consequence it's included on some articles not related to Latin America. Originally it was also suppose to include the music task force, which it did not by accident. I apologize for the inconvience. Go ahead and remove it. Magiciandude (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reverted the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Did I bite you?

I reverted an edit you made, and provided an edit summary intended to both point you to the semi-obscure and perhaps counterintuitive WP policy that was the reason for the reversion, as well as summarize that policy. Now I've got another user reverting that change seemingly to defend you, claiming that I was biting you and disrupting Wikipedia, among other things. So do you feel bitten? If so, let me know, and I'll reconsider whether I made some error. However, if you look at yourself and find no toothmarks on you, well, I'm going to restate my reversion. BTW, thanks for all the good effort in clearing up the legal subtleties regarding that article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a single bite anywhere. Every day I discover a Wikipedia policy I'd never heard of. There are so many, and I'm not sure they're fully consistent. I was suprised the other editor reverted you, and I didn't understand the application of the policies he cited. It was almost as if he thought you were being unkind to my good faith change. I thought your edit summary was clear and polite. Not to worry. If you want to revert the reversion, knock yourself out. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the affirmation! --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mila Kunis page

I really appreciate your help and edit suggestions on her page. I joined wiki and started editing last February mainly because her page lacked so many details that were relevant to her career. I just made another update to the layout, tell me what you think? I just think/ and like that there should be a separation of sorts between film projects that are finished and have been reviewed and seen and projects that are either currently filming, or planned for the future. Although I agree a one sentence recap is limited, but I still think it is better with something to distinguish it.Fsm83 (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think she's very lucky to have such a vigorous supporter of her work. As for your recent section changes, I'm going to alter them somewhat. For one thing, section headings shouldn't be italicized, but beyond that, I think even if you're going to have one sentence in the current projects section, it belongs as a subsection to her career. I'm also making some other subsection heading changes to be more uniform. I'm not completely happy with it. Tell me what you think.

Finally, I prefer to keep our discussion either here or on your talk page rather than bounce back and forth. Because it's now here, let's keep it here. You can watch this page to see if I have posted something in response to anything you say.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with just one sentence it is much better to have as a subsection. Your edit changes look good. I'll keep on trying to think of ways to set up the headings and maybe between the two of us we'll come up with another idea. Also, I like your idea of using this as a location for our dialogue. If I have questions on your edits or need to put in details on anything I have done to the page I will post them here.Fsm83 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I preferred the original picture layout too......it seemed an event like a premiere was better, and her being dressed for the occasion, etc. I have no problem if it is switched back. I wasn't sure what the proper protocol is for such thngs.Fsm83 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've swapped the pictures back. I don't think there's any guideline on the selection of which image to go where, although with Wikipedia, there may be a guideline I've missed (there are so many). I did look at WP:Images#Image_choice_and_placement, as the most obvious place, and it doesn't address the issue. I believe I've read somewhere that more recent pictures are better, and certainly, intuitively, you wouldn't want to use a really old picture (except for historical reasons), but the temporal difference between these two pictures is only 2009 vs. 2008, so I don't see a big deal using the older picture in the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I updated the award news with a source link. Feel free to edit the line to make it sharper.....it's kind of choppy, but if you can word it better I'm all for it. Fsm83 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it was "choppy", but I removed the word "strong" (editorializing and the award speaks for itself), and then streamlined it slightly.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and figured it was best if I respond here. Hopefully I am using the (colon) correctly here. Let me know if I am not. It is extremely frustrating to put in a great deal of time and effort to improve a page, and then have someone who visits the page for the first time in a year deem some of your work unnecessary or against the wiki policy. I find that ridiculous. But as I mentioned I am not going to spend my time in debates with this editor. I do appreciate you recognizing that it is hard work. And although it is not "my personal page" you do take pride in trying to improve a page and making it more informative and interesting. As I said in my response on the page you can go to a variety of actor pages and find similar types of quotes and information. In fact some of the ideas I used, including the (quote box) came from viewing other actor sites that were even given the wiki seal of approval as being good articles. There was a definite part of me that wanted to take him on quote for quote, because I do disagree with him on several points, but again, I'm just not going to go down that road. It is a road that will have no end. I stand by what I said, the majority of the edit changes were an opinion change, and not a violation. But I will just continue to look at ways to constructively improve the page when I can. Fsm83 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the update on the page today. I had a source link to an article that has her saying in an interview she hasn't agreed or signed on to do the role yet...only in the talk stage. Here it is just for a reference for now......http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/12/14/mila-kunis-hasnt-joined-seth-macfarlanes-ted-exclusive/

If she does actually sign on then it would be appropriate to include.Fsm83 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reference, it helps, although I pretty much took you at your word. I was reluctant to leave it in in the first place even before your edit because it felt dicey to me. I should have trusted my own judgment, but it all worked out in the end thanks to your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks once again on the tv age issue. She just appeared on the talk show, "Lopez Live" a couple days ago, once again telling the story and stating the ages were 14 and 18.....I've also read it in other recent articles where she says it. I would have made the edit change if you hadn't.Fsm83 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Honestly, my main reason for reverting was I couldn't stand the thought of reopening that can of worms. My memory of the last discussion is that it was very extended and, at least from my point of view, not wholly satisfying. However, unless someone comes up with a new reliable source that contradicts what's there now, it has to remain the way it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that is especially true given there are several credible sources out there with the quote of 18. The only source I have ever seen to create this issue, was the one discussed on the talk page, which was from the video clip of the E hollywood report on the 70s show, which I still strongly contend she was saying the "character" needed to be 16.....not that the audition age required it. Regardless, as you said, even if others want to dispute that position, there is no source that I have ever seen, in written form, stating 16 as the age.Fsm83 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My vague memory is I was one of the ones who disputed your position (smile), but it's not important because that battle was fought and resolved, and whether my position prevailed is unimportant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to make you sorry the worms have been opened. :)....even if the recent article quotes from her are in question to some I think the best source is the words of ther person. Here she is on Lopez tonight 4 days ago talking about it, and once again saying 18..it starts at about the 3 minute 15 second mark.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uvWZrOiC_U Fsm83 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Only if you assume her memory is accurate. Nonetheless, I enjoyed watching the clip. She looks great.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I look at it this way. There are at least two video clips of her on talk shows of her telling the story and saying the age was 18....the clips are about 8 years apart......she just did an interiew in Nylon magazine where she said it was 18....I would estimate I could find a half dozen or more articles on the internet with her relaying the story that the age was 18. I have never seen a written article with a quote saying the age was 16. The only dispute I've seen to use was the E True Hollywood story where she was speaking in a forum discussion, and again, in my opinion she was referring to the character being 16...not the age to audition. I think at a certain point, when you have dozens of sources saying the age was 18, both on video and in written material, and on the other end you have zero sources in written form saying she was 16, and really none even in video form that you can say it disputes it 100 percent, then we should be pretty safe to go with what is currently written. Again, I don't mean to beat this to death, but you should at least be happy that I have taken your advice and am standing up for a point I believe in. I'm learning well from you. :)Fsm83 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You're blaming this on me? Boy. :-) First, I'm not advocating that we change what's currently written. Second, let's assume, just hypothetically, that Kunis has it wrong. Nonetheless, if she repeats the wrong story enough, she will think that's what happened. A common memory phenomenon. Mind you, I'm not saying she has it wrong, just that her repetition of it doesn't necessary mean it's accurate. Third, I thought the whole point (even in the latest video) was that she was 14, the age of the character. But you're now saying that 16 is the age of the character. How can that be? Finally, I thought there were other wrinkles in the sources, but I simply can't remember now (at least I admit my memory isn't perfect). Why don't we change the article to say she was 2 years old when she auditioned but told the producers she was really 85 and they bought it, hired her, and sent her to a make-up expert who made her look like she was 14?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no not blaming you:)......I don't think there is anything wrong with her memory of events because her story has been consistent. OK, I will try to clarify this. She WAS 14 when she auditioned for the role.....the character "sheet" description break down, which is what an actor is given when they go in to audition, described the character of Jackie as being a 16 year old. The character of Jackie on the That 70s was 16 years old. Her charcter of Jackie was a year behind all the other characters on the show. There was even an episode where all the other characters had their High School graduation, and the following year they were all out of High School, while the Jackie character was still attending high school. So Jackie was was only 16. This is the point Mila Kunis was making when she was talking in that clip for the E True Hollywood story. She was saying her character was 16...she was not saying that she needed to be 16 for audition purposes.

Now, when she went in to do the audition they asked her how old she was and she told them she was "going to be" 18....not telling them when that was....which is what the lie or fib was. The producers of the show wanted the actors to be 18 or turning 18 soon, so they wouldn't have to deal with home schooling, etc... As Mila has said, by the time she was offered the role they knew the truth. It wasn't a big deal. But she had done so well in the audtion they chose to give her the part even though she was only 14 at the time.Fsm83 (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What is your opinion, or what is the wiki standard for this kind of news? http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/swan_song_NHrOXGoAJGn1eyS9GUNtkN?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

I noticed a few days ago somebody edited the page and changed the relationship to ending in 2010. And then you reverted it back which made sense to me. But is the NY Post considered a reliable source? Should there be a wording change in the Personal life section just to indicate they "were" in a relationship. Or is something else needed from another source? I imagine somebody is going to go to the page and edit it sooner or later. But I didn't want to do anything unless it was considered reliable information. Fsm83 (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, somebody made the edit change with a good source and it looks fine.Fsm83 (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edit yet, but I did notice this morning at work that there were reports that they had broken up. It looked reliable to me. I'll look at it later.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI....I just saw your edit changes and they look fine to me. I am the one that moved some of the personal information section up earlier today because several people were logging on and adding details of the breakup that were just redundant and a repeat of what was already posted. After reverting a couple edits I finally moved it up in hopes that people could easily read that the information was there. I was trying to avoid edit wars but it is probably a lost cause and just something that will have to be done for several more days until the story dies down. I am sure you have also noticed the edit war trying to change her listing as single, as if this is a dating site. To me an 8 year relationship is part of the person's history and it should remain, just as it is listed for 2002-2010.Fsm83 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to announce the break-up and then talk about what happened before it. It will take a while for the article to settle down. Recent news always does that to Wikipedia articles. I just reverted a wholesale removal of material about her views on marriage and Culkin. Whether those views are significantly notable now that they've broken up isn't clear to me, but, like you, I find her comments to add color and flesh to the article rather than a more bare-bones, machine gun-like recital of events.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A statement about what her feelings were at the time of the relationship is still relevant and there is no reason to no longer include it. Especially when it is worded in such a way clearly indicating it is from the past. Additionally, other statements about her personal life in terms of how she spends her time with friends and travel time with her brother are also relevant and reasonable for a section that is titled "personal life". And it was totally unnecessary that they were removed. I would have restored them if you hadn't. But thanks for taking care of it.Fsm83 (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg

Only spaces, nothing more. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you're counting

I noticed your comment about "the incredible number of arguments he appears to get into with other editors" on User: Rodhullandemus talk page. First, I do a lot of good work here, and I do piss people off who'd rather come here and put in any old shit that suits their fancy without regard to policy. Most either eventually understand what I'm trying to tell them, or they leave. Either way, the project benefits.

Second, you are correct in your assesment of your issue at Daniel Radcliffe as "a nit". Technically your edit is not incorrect. I see no reason to pursue this any further. Radiopathy •talk• 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hi, I noticed your comment at the pending changes straw poll, would you like me to set the reviewer flag on your account? I think you are also more than ready for rollback - just have a read of wp:Rollback and tell me when you would and wouldn't use it. Cheers ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. With respect to becoming a reviewer, I'll pass for the present, principally because I don't like the current trial system. Nonetheless, if the current system or a revised system ever becomes permanent, I'll reconsider, even if I don't like it, because I don't want to refuse to participate in a community procedure simply because I don't like it.

With respect to rollback rights, I think that would be useful for me. I already perform rollbacks manually by following the instructions on editing a former version and saving it, but a rollback link would make that job a little easier. Pursuant to the guideline, I would use rollback when more than one change by a single user is inappropriate, whether it's because the changes are disruptive or even good faith changes that are unsourced, poorly sourced, or inaccurate. Although the guideline doesn't require a summary when the reason is obvious, i.e., vandalism, I would always include a summary. I think it's helpful to identify the reason, even if it's only for other editors. In general, I'm strongly in favor of explaining my actions and my own contributions.

As an aside, this sentence in WP:Rollback makes no sense to me: "Originally, rollback was available only to non-administrators; it has been available to other users since January 2008." Shouldn't the "non" be eliminated? I would change it myself but I don't actually know the history of the feature, so I'll leave it to your discretion.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems there has just been a radical rewrite to the rollback policy. I've fixed the non- bit - I'm pretty sure that was just a slip. The broader change is to allow the use of Rollback for good faith edits where you use some special software to create a special edit summary. I would suggest that unless that policy sticks, and also that you start using such software, then like me you would be best advised to only user Rollback when reverting someone else's blatant vandalism, or undoing your own mistakes. In other words if you Rollback someone else's edits with the default edit summary you are marking their edits as vandalism. As for reviewer, drop me a line if and when you want it. ϢereSpielChequers 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the rollback policy, when rolling back GF edits, I can either use software or I can manually "copy the URL of the rollback link, append &summary= followed by your desired summary to the end of the URL, and paste it into your browser's address bar." Kind of kludgy, but I might try it just to see how it works. Otherwise, I'll have to learn and use the software, which might also be a good thing. I just used rollback for the first time for clear vandalism of the United States Supreme Court article. At least now, I see what it does.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds Kludgy, but if you want to try that go ahead - I can't advise as I've never looked into that aspect of Rollback. ϢereSpielChequers 21:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: your most recent post at Tony Goldman

I saw your last post at Talk:Tony Goldwyn and thought I'd respond here instead of at the talk page since this is about handling problems in general. The semi ought to help for now, but you're right that the editor's activity on other articles may be problematic. All I can say is to try and keep an eye on it if you can.

As to requesting blocks, I'm not sure what your experience is, but if an editor continues problematic behavior beyond a "level 4" warning (see WP:UW#Guidelines), he or she may be reported to WP:AIV. Honestly I think that's the best course at this time; some inexperienced editors may not notice the "new messages" bar, or click on it and not read. In the case of an editor acting in good faith, but such poor execution as that, a block can be a wake-up call. And if it doesn't work, there are other solutions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

After I posted, I went ahead and looked through quite a few of the IP's past edits. Many of them I reverted as inappropriate, but interestingly some of them were legitimate. I don't think the IP is a vandal, just a misguided individual with an agenda who doesn't pay attention to what's going on around him or her. Since the IP's last attempt to change Goldywyn, he or she hasn't made any contributions (at least not under that address). So, I'll watch to see whether there's any more coming from that address in the future. If there is and even some are wrong-headed, I'll request a block. Otherwise, I'll let it ago. Thanks for your comments and advice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

90210

Please don't call one of my edits vandalism. In The CW press release for the fall 2010 season, Gillian Zinser was listed as Ivy. Whether her last name is "Sullivan" or not, that's listed on the characters page. If you want the link just ask, but don't accuse someone of vandalism and remove hidden notes, that's considered vandalism actually. Jayy008 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I'm glad we cleared it up. Yeah, I noticed it was a little to angry, that's why I thought it best to tone it down. Jayy008 (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

List of That '70s Show episodes (season 7)

Thanks for your message on linking Lindsay Lohan#Filmography to List of That '70s Show episodes (season 7)#ep160 (season 7, episode 7). Fixed – I see you even thanked me before I got to let you know! No problem. — Richardguk (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Award!

		Ukraine Barnstar
		I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for improving the article Mila Kunis and all your other edits the past months! A lot of small edits are just as important as writing new lengthy articles! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature in infobox

Signature is a standard parameter in Template:Infobox person. Cresix (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your responding to my edit summary question, but I'm not sure what you mean by standard parameter. I've seen lots of articles about BLPs, and, in particular, performers, but I've never seen anyone put their signature in the infobox. Now it may be that we just don't have a signature to use, but what makes a performer's signature notable? Have you seen the parameter used in other perform infoboxes? I also hate how prominently displayed it is. With some assistance, I made the signature itself smaller, but I'd really like to put the word Signature flush left with the signature itself to the right of it, but apparently that's not possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Standard parameter means it is acceptable to add it to the article. Click Template:Infobox person and you can see all of them. It is not required (which is why you don't always see it; signatures that aren't covered by copyright are hard to get), but it is acceptable to use it. You can challenge it in a single article by bringing it up on that article's talk page. To remove it as a parameter you would need to address it at Template talk:Infobox person. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there are more specific templates that are based on this one, such as Template:Infobox Actor. It also has the signature parameter, but it might be easier to get it changed for a more specific template. I suspect some editors would object, however. But obviously I can't speak for anyone else. I tend to agree with you about the size, although I'm not opposed in general to signatures. Size is easy to adjust. Cresix (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to remove the parameter from the template. I just don't know if I agree with you that just because the parameter exists (there are a LOT of parameters) and because, in this instance, Pattinson's signature is available, that it makes sense to show it. As for the size, it actually was difficult to adjust because there is no size setting built into the signature parameter, and I had to ask on the technical board how to do it. I may bring up the issue of including Pattison's signature on the Talk page. Another possibility is to remove it and let the editor who added it raise it on the Talk page. Interestingly, the editor who added it is also the author of the image.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

An honest disagreement. I guess the way I look at it, if it does no harm and adds something of interest, it's OK to include it. As for size, another way to easily reduce size is to use the large image to create a new reduced size image (most image viewing software that is pre-installed on most computers can do that), then replace the larger image with the smaller one. I understand your concern about what you had to do to reduce it. On the other hand, there a number of technical things on Wikipedia that I have never done and would have to learn how to do; but that doesn't mean I think the end result is not a good one. Cresix (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought of reducing the size of the image itself with software, but I wanted to avoid that. I agree with you that learning about many of the technical things on Wikipedia is useful. As for whether the signature belongs in the infobox, I completely understand your viewpoint, but given how many infobox parameters there are, I think we have to make judgments as to what information is important, relevant, notable, whatever.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if every parameter is used, the infobox would be prohibitively enormous. But that's never the case, so my perspective is to address excessive use of parameters on a case-by-case basis. I personally would oppose removing any parameters in general (unless one of them became a consistent problem) because you never know when they might be useful. When infoboxes are set up, there is some consensus process involved before they become widely used. Anyway, happy editing! Cresix (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't propose removing the signature parameter from the template, but removing its use in the Pattinson article. And I haven't even proposed that ... yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood. While we're on the topic, I even wondered if the image of the signature is freely available. File:Robert Pattinson signature.svg indicates that the image came from this autograph and that the autograph is not subject to copyright. I feel certain the image of the people in the photograph is copyrighted, but I don't know the legalities of the autograph itself. If the uploader of the autograph purchased the picture, I'm not sure if that gives him/her free rights. This would add a new layer of complexity to your concerns if there are legal issues. I feel strongly about adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia. I'm just not sure about the legal status in this case. You might inquire with the uploader: did he/she purchase the signed photograph, or simply lift it from Amazon's website? I imagine that Amazon has a copyright on their entire website. Cresix (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In copyright law, it doesn't really matter who owns the item (the picture, the autograph, whatever). It matters only who owns the copyright or is a licensee. I agree with you that the picture is copyrighted. And I'm assuming that Scarce owned a copy of the picture and that Pattison signed it. I don't believe that the addition of Pattison's autograph improperly created a derivative work of the original picture because the modification did not add enough originality to the picture. If I'm right, then lifting the autograph itself shouldn't be a copyright violation. Derivative works and copyright violations are complicated, and although I don't have complete confidence in my answer, I don't intend to go that route, but you're free to. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No thanks! I don't have the time. But I do think if Scarce lifted it directly from Amazon that there may be a Wikipedia violation. Cresix (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wording controversy

please see Montserrat Caballé's discussion page. --76.67.165.20 (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Caruso

Hi. Just a quick note to clarify that I didn't make any of the changes you gave me the credit/blame for in your edit note on Caruso. Best wishes, Markhh (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reach

What browser are you using? I suspect it's a compatibility issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

90210

I've noticed that. They really don't like it! And grrrr, I will send a warning first of all then go into block requests. Thanks for letting me know!! Jayy008 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's an unreasonable one! Removed my comment calling it "idiotic". Yawn. I guess if he does it again it'll have to be straight into warnings. Jayy008 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg

Hi. Got your message. Will reply there on my talk page. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

President of the United States article

Does this need revamping? What's your take on this article. I kind of agree that it's easier to do things one step at a time. The Congress project turned out to be more work than I had thought but I'm happy with the result.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom, your energy is boundless. Even thinking about you doing the work tires me out, maybe because then I will feel compelled to look at it. :-) Wouldn't you like to take a sabbatical? Enjoy New Zealand (such a beautiful country)? My feeling is I'd leave the article alone unless someone complains again about the Criticisms section. If you really feel you have to reopen the issue, then I suppose the proper place to discuss it is on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23, but my energy isn't boundless, and I'm thinking I bit off more than I could chew on Congress. So I'll take your suggestion fully and leave president well enough alone unless bugged about it. I'm taking a course on American constitutional history (CDs from the Teaching Company) and learning new stuff. Problem is with Teaching Co materials is that they're sometimes hard to reference with inline (online) citations. If there is some political area needing attention, let me know. I also have CDs from Teaching Co. on history of the Supreme Court which I'm planning to go over, but the professor talks so fast.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom Hanks

I sourced the info you deleted re Samantha Lewes, Tom Hanks' first wife. She was born on November 29, 1952 and died on March 12, 2002 from bone cancer, aged 49. Easily confirmable and relevant as she does not have (or in my opinion qualify based on public info available) an article of her own. There is a large quantity of text with far more contentious assertions which is unsourced. I tagged such text accordingly. I wonder how you came to overlook that. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your change. The birth and death dates of Hanks's first wife are not notable. Perhaps if she had died while they were still married, her death would be relevant. Also, IMDb is not considered a good source, except for things like casts and credits. As for overlooking other unsourced assertions, I pay more attention to new unsourced material than old. However, feel free to add templates to unsourced material if you think it's appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you reconsider your policy of overlooking old information which is not sourced and essentially "grandfathering it in" as though the length of time it has remained unsourced somehow inures it, while concentrating on, at least in this case, removing perfectly valid information. I have found and removed offensive and/or inaccurate material that apparently had lain unnoticed for a long time.

It's not a policy. And there's a difference between removing offensive or inaccurate material and insisting on sources, even for material that isn't necessary offensive or inaccurate.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, since when is IMDb biodata not considered reliable? You deleted the Samantha Lewes data by stating it was not sourced, then you moved the goalposts declaring, by fiat, that the source is unreliable. I know IMDb is far from perfect, but it is used as a source in almost every acting/performing/filmmaking-related article on Wikipedia. Are you going to be deleting the dates/places of birth/death from every article which has only an IMDb source for such info? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff the first time because it wasn't sourced (that was the easiest basis to delete it). I deleted it the second time mainly because it's not notable. The allusion to IMDb was a secondary reason. Why do you think the birth and death of Hanks's first wife is notable in Hanks's article? As for the side issue of whether IMDb is a reliable source for this sort of thing, see Template:BLP IMDB refimprove and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Smith. There are other discussions about IMDb and its reliability as a source, but, honestly, I'm willing to accept the fact that Lewes was born and died on particular dates. I agree with you it's not contentious in and of itself, but I don't see how it satisfies notability. If you believe it's notable, you could raise it on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

God of Carnage (flim)

Would it be too early to create this article or would you favour waiting until a later date? I thank you for reverting my edits in the spirit of the rule.IBS101 (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've seen editors create articles for upcoming films that have not yet started filming if they have very reliable sources. That's also mentioned in WP:CRYSTAL.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Hiya,

I noticed you helping out on the helpdesk (great stuff), and wondered if, perhaps, you can also help some users on WP:FEED? It is quite similar; mostly newly-created articles looking for some basic info on how to improve the article. If you have a quick look over recent feedback given, you'll get the idea; anyway - it was just a thought; if you ever can help out there, please do, because it quite often gets backlogged. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  04:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I will try to look at the forum and help when I can (translate to when I'm not so tired).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of European American and White American on U.S. Supreme Court pages

Greetings! In light of your previous work on these articles, please weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

DADT decision

The material I quoted is taken directly from Judge Philips published decision. (Perhaps I did not reference it correctly?) So in terms of WP:RS, I think her words describing the e-mails are better. While the current version (that you reverted to) has described the e-mails as private, they were -- according to the trial record and Judge Philips' decision -- on a government computer. The subject if off topic from the article, but an underlying point is that "private" emails do not exist on any government (or employer) owned computer.--S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's Talk page. Let's keep our discussion there.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Violation You have violated the three-revert rule on Ryan Seacrest. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.

Kudos

on Zuckerberg bar mitzvah mention.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can create a new article for Randi so I can no longer insist she's not notable, surely the least I can do is get her brother bar mitzvahed (Star Wars yet).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you, for your positive comments about my work, in the deletion discussion for the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System at the AFD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. Your comments are most appreciated. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Writing readable articles is a talent that merits recognition. Doesn't do much good to write articles that no one wants to read, or, in some cases, no one is even able to read.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just not sure what to do about the WP:SPAs. -- Cirt (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for improving my edits to the Kim Thomson page. I was mostly using the word positive (oops I meant the word possibly - I suspect you might have known what I meant but I thought I better fix this for anyone else following this) to try and AGF with Lynnannebr who left the message on the biography talk page (who you had already responded to) really was connected to Ms Thompson in some way. It is always interesting how one small post somewhere can cause a flurry of activity on a given article. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. With all of us working together, I think we did a reasonably good job.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for your reply! MarnetteD | Talk 00:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Good Wife

Hey, I just wanted you to know that I've added Sonequa Martin back to the "recurring cast" members of The Good Wife. She's been in 8 episodes as Alicia's assistant. The wiki lists Kevin Conway with no wrangling, and he's only been in two episodes. She hasn't been a hugely pivotal character since the Alicia vs Cary in-house debacle, but she's still actually acting on the show regularly. No, she hasn't been in 41 episodes like the Emmy-winning star of the show, but she's been in more than Anika Noni Rose. Hopefully I've made my case, I think she deserves to be in the Recurring Cast lineup and I hope we can come to an agreement about this. I think she deserves to be credited and I hope you will not take issue. :-) (mikomango (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for the heads up. IMDb reports that Martin has been in 7 episodes, not 8, but that's not terribly important. Your comment highlights, for me, the need to remove Conway more than a justification for putting in Martin. Part of the problem is not just the number of episodes, but the importance of the part played. Martin has a pretty small part. Also, how recently the actor has been featured may be a factor. In any event, I'm not going to do undo your change for the moment. I'd like to think about how to do this in a better way.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but I think 7-8 episodes counts as "recurring". Can we wait until next season's lineup starts to decide who to chop and shelve? I literally came to The Good Wife wiki page just to learn WHO WAS playing the secretary and was flabbergasted when I couldn't find mention of her anywhere. My personal experience with this Wiki led me to add the change. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for learning, right? All I know is, I came to the Wiki looking to find out, "who is this gorgeous woman who plays the secretary?" and was shocked to find out she was not there. Come on...perhaps we need to start a "List of Characters in The Good Wife" Wiki for people like me who want to know about secretaries, but for now, I don't see why adding her is so offensive/problematic. I specifically went to the page to find her and couldn't so...obviously someone cares right? Why deprive someone the chance of learning just because the part was not seemingly important enough yet? I also hope we can come to an agreement about this because at the end of the day, it's probably not that serious for now. Once The Good Wife hits season 3 or 4 there will be a separate Wiki for characters by then, so I hope you don't find the addition too offensive. I too hope we can come to an agreement. (mikomango (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC))

"Disingenuous"

I am a sincere, honest person.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my characterization of your argument(s) as disingenuous offended you, but it wasn't a personal disparagement, just my opinion of some of your arguments. I certainly never said you are not sincere or honest. A sincere person can make an argument that others might find disingenuous (I'm familiar with the definitions of disingenuous).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, water under the bridge.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Stana Katic

Hi there. I wanted to inform you that I undid your recent edit to Stana Katic. While you are correct that WP:ELNO #10 discourages links to pages like Twitter, the whole WP:ELNO section should only be applied to links that are not by the subject (that's why it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:" at the top). Per WP:ELOFFICIAL such links are okay if they are published by the subject itself. While this particular account is not flagged as "verified" by Twitter, it's linked from the official site. As such, the link was okay and thus I have reinstated it. If you disagree, please feel free to contact me or discuss it on the talk page. Regards SoWhy 23:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I disagree because of what else it says in WP:ELOFFICIAL: "The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable." It's not clear to me that that requirement is met here. We'd have to review all the things Katic tweets about to know. I generally dislike these kinds of things in external links. It makes more sense to include in the body any tweets she makes that are notable. I'll await your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, although I'd disagree with them. Reviewing the feed in question, it's pretty obvious that most of her updates are related to her acting work, i.e. the area for which she is notable. Unless we have reliable secondary sources about her tweets though, none of them are notable themselves, so it would be impossible to include them in the body. And even if they were, I think it would be a disservice to the readers if we cluttered the article body with that. A small link at the end is much more efficient to inform the reader of an additional source for updates by the subject without making it too complicated. That said, if you disagree, you are free to discuss this on the article's talk page, so that others can voice their opinions as well. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gorky

The chain of quotations here is the New York Times quoting Henckel von Donnersmarck quoting Gorky quoting Lenin. That is a rather long chain. I remember this quote from Gorky, but it has become very mangled and misquoted here, the words have been twisted around to a new meaning. This is an encyclopedia, and von Donnersmarck, who has an axe to grind, mis-quoting Lenin doesn't belong here.

The actual quotation is below. I guess I will re-add some of it. As long as it is the real quotation it is fine. The below can be found in Gorky's works, and in books about Lenin.

And screwing up his eyes and chuckling, he added without mirth:

But I can't listen to music often, it affects my nerves, it makes me want to say sweet nothings and pat the heads of people who, living in a filthy hell, can create such beauty. But today we mustn't pat anyone on the head or we'll get our hand bitten off; we've got to hit them on the heads, hit them without mercy, though in the ideal we are against doing any violence to people. Hm-hm - it's a hellishly difficult office!

Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about the quote, but you have to source it. You can source it to a book or whatever you want, but you can't just leave it hanging there. I'll leave it for a bit to give you an opportunity to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

pic

Hi Bbb23, I took the pic out as it is imo without doubt a copyright violation under a commons license but there is perhaps a good case for a fair use rationale, is that something you are experienced in writing? If not do you see a worth in asking someone to write one? Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rob, I noticed you took it out. I'm not experienced in writing a fair use rationale. I'm not real happy with the ones I see, actually, because fair use is a problematic defense to a copyright violation, so I'm not keen on asking someone else to write one. That said, you could pose the question at the media copyright questions page if you want. It would be helpful to be able to figure out who owns the copyright to the picture so we know whose copyright we're violating (absent fair use).

As an aside, I think the article name should be changed. Someone on the Talk page in 2009 criticized the name. "Sister Abhaya case" would be okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will give the pic a bit more consideration, thanks for your comments. Also the article name, same goes for that, perhaps as the story has progressed at some points it was not a murder investigation, I will give that a bit of consideration also, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Great work

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For all of the hard work and effort you are putting in to clean-up Sister Abhaya murder case. Thank you! Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Yes, from me also. A difficult task taken on, well done indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your effort on the article is also hugely appreciated Rob - but you know I already think you're a BLP star :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob (I already thanked Ponyo). I'm continuing to work on the article, attempting to order it better, remove redundancies, remove POV, add sources, etc. It's tough-going and I can only do so much each day, but it's coming along. In fact, the story is quite interesting once you get into it, and from an Anglo perspective, some of the language - even, for example, the official language in judicial orders - is rather exotic.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Feedback Category

Joseph, please note the discussion the comment on the Fillion Talk page here, as well as the discussion I began at the EAR here. I confirmed Mendaliv's suspicion that you've added the same category to multiple articles. I would prefer that you remove your own edits. Will you take care of that? You can respond here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I saw that "feature" in an article, and I subsequently added it into several other articles. I guess I am mistaken and/or confused about this situation. Please let me know what's going on. I assumed that it was a way to capture feedback on articles (as with the article in which I first spotted it). So, liking the feature, I did indeed add it into several other articles. One editor at the Nathan Fillion article presented his objection. He referred me to several links, which had many, many pages of information. Which, as of yet, I did not have the time to sort through. So, please give me the nut-shell version of what this is all about. Why can this "feature" be added only to some articles, yet not to other articles? And how am I supposed to know which articles it may be legitimately added to, versus which it may not? Thanks. Please let me know. Once I understand the situation, I will be happy to revert whatever edits I (inappropriately) may have made. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

I noticed this thread and felt I could perhaps share what I understand about this pilot program. The feedback pilot is a program to assess the potential value of the tool for feedback and article development. At first it was only applied to articles which were tagged as part of United States Public Policy. The pilot has expanded to include additional articles outside the USPP scope. The criteria for these additional articles are articles where we know there will be a significant amount of edit activity in the coming 1-2 months and/or articles which are not yet substantially written. If a good faith assessment concludes that one of these circumstances exist, it would be entirely proper to consider adding the articles to this pilot. For my participation with this program, I am optimistic that this pilot will prove beneficial. This page may provide more information regarding additional pages being included in this pilot. FWIW, Cheers. My76Strat 04:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Joseph, hopefully My76Strat's explanation and the pointer are enough for you. However, in a nutshell, as I understand it, no one is supposed to add the category to any articles unless authorized by the workgroup. I admit the information on the workgroup pages is confusing, though, and I posted a question to their discussion page, and disappointingly, no one responded. Honestly, I don't know how you even found the category.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your input and for the information. Well, it seems to me that I am not supposed to add that "feature" to articles without some sort of permission or approval. Therefore, I will remove it from those 4 or 5 articles (or so) to which I added it. Also, to Bbb23 ... it was not at all difficult to "find" this category. I noticed that an editor (My76Strat, in fact) added it to an article that I frequently read (Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders). When I noticed the new feature, I simply looked at the Revision History of the article's recent edits (the "View History" tab) ... and I saw the (hidden) category listed there as the only change to the article. Thanks again to you both. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

I went into my edit history, and I have determined that these are the eight articles (listed below) to which I added the (hidden) Article Feedback Category. I was just about to delete the category from these eight pages, but then I noticed that many users had already completed the surveys. For some reason, I did not think it best to delete their input and their responses. There would be several dozen responses that I would have deleted from these eight articles. I do not intend to add the category to any further articles. But, perhaps the input and feedback from these eight articles can be incorporated into this pilot feedback program. I don't see the harm in that, since the feedback has already been submitted. If you disagree (or for whatever policy reason), please feel free to delete the category (and the input provided) within these articles. The eight articles are:

* Academy Award – 20 replies

* Joran van der Sloot – 35 replies

* Coach (TV series) – 3 replies

* Pieces of April – 7 replies

* All's Well That Ends Well – 1 reply

* To Kill a Mockingbird (film) – 6 replies

* To Kill a Mockingbird – 14 replies

* Sideways – 2 replies

** Total: 88 replies

Thanks. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC))

Mark Zuckerberg

Hi,

Just wanted to ask why have you removed from the personal life section the information about Zuckerberg been in Jewish fraternity while he was student? We didn't discuss it and it's certainly relevant. I would appreciate if you restore it. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, I've explained it more than once. I removed it only from the raised Jewish part because it talks about his childhood, whereas when he was in the fraternity, he was an adult in college. However, his membership is still in the article a little further down in the same section: "Microsoft and AOL tried to purchase Synapse and recruit Zuckerberg, but he instead went to Harvard College in September 2002 where he studied computer science and psychology and joined Alpha Epsilon Pi, a Jewish fraternity." Does that make sense to you?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Gilisa (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

my comments

I don't know what's bothering you, but assure you that my goal is the proper structure of such tables. Jack Merridew 06:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the substantive comments about how you believe tables should be laid out that bothered me. Elizium also made similar statements, but his didn't bother me. It was the way you expressed yourself. Electronic media communications are often prone to misinterpretation and misunderstanding, which means, particularly in a venue like Wikipedia where most of us spend a lot of time debating and arguing, we have to be a little more sensitive about how are comments might be received.

The other things that bothered me were that you appear to have assumed I added the new Simpson information in the first place, the placement of the new information was chronologically correct, my last change would have upset the chronology, and it was done only to satisfy some personal feeling on my part. None of that was true. It was the last part that bothered me the most (the "penchant" comment on Mepolypse's Talk page) because it attacked my motives.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you got irritated based on assumptions that you made about my meaning, not what I actually wrote. I did not assume you added that other episode; I looked at history. But you did seem to 'want' an order; some edit summary about 'liking' them together. The proper approach is to set the order per what's known, and the other editor seems to have looked further into the dates. I also saw that you undid the inappropriate rowspans, so thanks, there. I did rather write the book on these tables. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary I believe you're referring to assumed that order within year wasn't required (still don't know that it is, frankly). Of course, that was before Metolypse rightly pointed out that one of the episodes wasn't even in the same year. In any event, I appreciate your continuing this discussion here, and I'm willing to chalk it up to unfortunate misunderstandings.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I rather leapt at the idea that within a year we should be going by date; I don't know that it's required, but it seems a very reasonable inference. In any event, we should not be grouping data via rowspans or by simply pairing items in a cell as it goes directly against proper data structure. I think you get this. No hard feelings; read COM:Mellow; it applies everywhere, really. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC? Jimbo's birthday

Hey Bbs,

I've noticed you've starting getting into the whole Jimbo birthday debate. I want to launch an RfC for the issue, but am having difficulty getting support for the idea. Do you think you could take a look at User:NickCT/sandbox and tell me whether you think this is a good idea?

I'm tying not to start this thing unilaterally. I have a feeling some of the editors who are harassing Wales will continue to do so, unless we have something solid like an RfC we can point to.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Nick. I did notice the RfC in your sandbox but I didn't comment because I don't really believe we should treat Wales differently from other editors or other article subjects. At the same time, maybe the only way to resolve this hoopla about nothing is to do what you suggest, I don't know. Interestingly enough, an editor who, as far as I can tell, has not been involved in the discussion took it upon herself to change the article's lead to just say the 7th, while leaving the first section alone, which still says the 7th and the 8th. She didn't include an edit summary (I don't understand why some experienced editors don't include edit summaries), and no one has commented on the change. I'm tempted to revert it, even though I favor eliminating the 8th from the article entirely, purely on the procedural ground that no consensus has been reached as to what to do. Which, of course, brings me back to your RfC because I'm not sure that a consensus is possible. It's all way too silly, even though, against my better judgment, I've been fairly vocal myself on the issue.

Anyway, personally, I don't believe your RfC's summary of the arguments is quite right. Do you want me to comment there?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "I don't really believe we should treat Wales differently" - Agreed. But how would this RfC treat him differently? I would do something similar were it a different BLP.

Re "I'm tempted to revert it" - Agreed. I was tempted too. I hesitated b/c I was worried it would look like edit warring. I will support you if you revert.

Re "I favor eliminating the 8th from the article" - Agreed.

Re "I'm not sure that a consensus is possible" - Reading back through the debate, it seems that a majority of editors who have chimed in support your POV. Often an RfC can work to make that majority more apparent.

Re "Do you want me to comment there?" - Please. Alternatively, per WP:BRD, edit the proposed RfC yourself. If I don't like what you put in, I'll revert and we can discuss! NickCT (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I edited your sandbox. Hardest part was the summary of the arguments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I saw your edits. I'll comment later.

I just came across this and now I am unholy confused. Does Britanica have this wrong? NickCT (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is odd.... Both the oregon piece and Britanica have claimed that JW said the 7th is wrong. But JW said on his talkpage that the 7th is in fact correct...... Why would Jimbo have previously claimed the 7th is wrong, only to now say it's right. Is this some kind of perverse test? NickCT (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Britannica piece and its possible implications. I've alluded to it in the discussion on Wales's Talk page ("Wales's current say-so (it seems to be a moving target)" & "Your previous statements are contradictory - perhaps intentionally for fun, I have no idea."). I wanted to say something stronger (like "are we being manipulated?") but restrained myself, figuring it would only ignite more contentious exchanges. I don't think Britannica got it wrong. The most positive construction I can think of (positive to Wales) is that he meant there was an official document saying the 8th that he would provide, but only if his birthdate wasn't published. Really stupid. But my view has always been that I want to completely ignore Wales and what he says and just decide the issue based on third-party sources, so the bottom line is I don't care what he says. I made this point on the Talk page ("regardless of what Wales himself says now, said before, or may say in the future").--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. I think I have a deeper appreciation of the issue now.

You gotta wonder, what the heck could Wales' motivation have been though? If Britannica is accurate when it says "only if it was agreed that his date of birth would not be published, which runs contrary to Britannica’s policies", it seems that Wales' is up to some kind of weird shenanigans. The Oregon ("Nobody knows," he said mysteriously) exert, makes it seem as though this could have been intentionally put out there to confuse.

Your explanation (i.e. he meant there was an official document saying the 8th that he would provide) is a little difficult to fit to the evidence. Perhaps you were right re "(it seems to be a moving target)". Perhaps at one point Wales did recognize his birthday as the 8th, hence his attempt to correct it in Britannica and his Oregon statement, but has since decided to follow his mother's narrative, which is that he was born on the 7th.........

Anyway, this is all speculation. You're probably right re "completely ignore Wales".

I'm a little concerned about the RfC now as the issue is more complex than I initially thought. Has anyone asked Wales to explain the Britannica statement? NickCT (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a lot of this can be explained by JW's post "I'm pretty sure I have never made any contradictory statements about this - I've been careful about that, but I do confess to intentionally having fun with it. :-)". Frankly, I'm pretty convinced JW has been playing silly buggers. I think he's annoyed by the ensuing debate it has caused. Well.... if that's true, he's made his bed. He can sleep in it. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, I'm responding to what you said before your latest addition) My "explanation" about the Britannica issue was not one I believe, just the only thing I could think of in Wales's defense. Personally, I think it's a major stretch. I'm not sure if anyone has asked Wales about the Britannica issue. I think it's been mentioned, but I'm not going to hunt for it because I think it's irrelevant. It's a little like a lawyer cross-examining a witness. The lawyer gets the witness to admit that he said something that on the surface appears to undermine the witness's credibility. At that point, the lawyer should stop. Some inexperienced lawyers go one step further and ask why. That's almomst always a mistake because it permits the witness to come up with a post hoc explanation that some poor juror might believe. Frankly, I'm not interested in Wales's explanation, but, more important, Wikipedia should not be interested in his explanation.

As for the RfC, my preference would be to start a new section on the Talk page asking editors to vote and explain their vote without any summary of the issues or the arguments. I'd like to bring this to a close.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "As for the RfC................ like to bring this to a close" - Agreed; though, this topic is so convoluted I'd be motivated to provide some kind of summary to help people digest what's out there. I think if you ask for a simple vote you'll get one of three possible responses; 1) editors will glance without digging and will opt for the 7th, 2) editors will dig a little and say "wait a second. Something is fishy. Maybe it should read 7th or 8th", or 3) editors will come to the understanding you've reached and simply go with the 7th.

Regardless, it has been enjoyable working through this with you. I came to your talk page hoping you'd assist me. I leave thinking it might be wiser for me to try and assist you. Let me know if I can do anything. I'll follow your lead. NickCT (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've noticed, there is now a royal battle going on. Other than comments on the Talk page, mostly to SlimVirgin, I'm watching from the sidelines. :-) Thanks for the kind words. It's always pleasant when two editors can discuss things, learn from each other, and not yell while they're doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all fronts. On another note, I've had mixed experiences with SV. She seems to approach a lot of debates with a "my way or the highway" attitude. I think this was evidenced in her "We don't have straw polls when BLP is clear, Bbb." comment. Seems a tad authoritative... But anyways, we're willing to go her way at the moment.... Until next time sir. NickCT (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Majority is not always right

I think you will enjoy this quote (by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S.624 (1943)):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

(this section added by User:Javaweb on December 7, 2010, and then edited for form by me.

Lol

Wow, you made my day! Smiles--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Facebook

Thanks for tidying up the Mark Zuckerberg article. I also updated Criticism of Facebook, fixing a lot of bad English and removing POV. If you'd care to take a look before the vandals set in... (I am not a Facebook partisan in any way; I don't even use it, btw) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome; thanks for your work, too. I'm not a Facebook user, either. Not sure how I became interested in the Zuckerberg article. I've never looked at Criticism of Facebook, and I'm too tired to look at it today, but I will try to get to it soon.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

3RR Accusation

Yeah, I went back and looked at that whole thing again. He's off his rocker if 1) he thinks that the sentence I fixed shouldn't have been changed and 2) if he thinks correcting multiple mistakes over the course of three edits is a violation of the 3RR rule. Thanks for the tip. Raoulduke25 (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note by me: The post above is in response to the following post I made on Raoulduke25's Talk page on 11/27/10:

"Do you know why DocSoc accused you of violating the WP:3RR rule in September with respect to Seacrest? See here (Horrible Sentence section). I don't see that you even came close, so I'm at a loss. You can respond here. Thanks."

Scalia

I've reinserted a shortened version of what was added. I think what particularly annoyed me about that addition is that it set itself up, promoting a certain law professor who is not notable, right at the top of the jurisprudence section, as if a Brooklyn Law prof is the most important commentator on Scalia in the world. I need to shift it to citation format still.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I made a few minor corrections.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I think it looks good now. If I don't stay on top of this article, it will get all sort of opinionated, unsourced comments, vandalism will go unnoticed, and eventually it will wind up at FAR. Not going to happen on my watch.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I closely watch the article, as well as all the articles of the justices. However, I may be less likely to revert a change than you if it's properly sourced. It's a judgment call as to when a properly sourced addition is noteworthy or balanced or adds undue weight, etc. I appreciate your oversight on these issues because I'm occasionally on the fence. What you did here seems appropriate to me, gets in the substance without giving it or the blog any real prominence. I wasn't as bothered as you by the blog/Mazzone part, but it did concern me that it was given its own subsection AND placed before all the other subsections.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is good. I keep a close eye on this as I was a part of the improvement process to FA, which is the only bio of a justice to make it through. I do act quickly, but if there's a feeling I've been too hasty, I very much welcome feedback and I'll reassess what I did.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked it up. It's one class, part of a series Bachmann is putting together. It's a seminar, in other words. I've been to a Scalia seminar when I was in law school (he was not as much of a rock star as he is today, but it was so crowded I sat on a garbage can!). I mean, that's what Supreme Court Justices do when they ain't justicing, they go out and give talks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The section header alone was so POV it jumped out at you. I didn't have to think much about this one. Thanks for the info on what it was about, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism

Bbb23:

  I recently received a message from you about edits I made to the page on Tom Hanks.  I had made some grammatical and mechanical corrections, and you left the following:

"Please don't use misleading edit summaries, as you did in your Tom Hanks edits ("cleaned up grammar and mechanics"). You did [sic] a great deal more than just grammar and mechanics, including removing and changing substance in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)"

While I did change substance in the article, I did not take out anything of substance; rather, I reworded some of the (many) awkwardly constructed sentences. Ex:

Old version:

    "n 2007, Hanks starred in Mike Nichols's film Charlie Wilson's War (written by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin) in which he plays Democratic Texas Congressman Charles Wilson. The film opened on December 21, 2007 and Hanks received a Golden Globe nomination. "

Edited version:

    "In 2007, Hanks starred as the title role in the Mike Nichols/Aaron Sorkin film Charlie Wilson's War. The film opened on December 21, 2007 and Hanks received a Golden Globe nomination for his acting." 

1--the above sentence has too many phrases strung together. 2--I did not not "do a great deal more than just grammar an mechanics [sic]." In fact, I clarified the construction so that the sentence reflected the facts--as written, the first version states that Aaron Sorkin played Charlie Wilson (as "he" refers to the nearest logical antecedent--there, "Aaron Sorkin."). I am not trying to start any sort of battle--rather, I am requesting further explanation to avoid future trouble, should such trouble arise. When I am looking at something on Wikipedia, I always change grammar and mechanics because I believe that any piece of writing--even a free source online--should be written correctly (if not well). As far as I can tell, that violates no Wikipedia policy. If writing a misleading edit summary is an offense, I apologize that you found mine misleading. Grammar is important because it's proper (or improper) usage changes the meaning of a sentence. Yes, I did remove--more often, reorganize--information, but it was for a grammatical/mechanical purpose, all in the interest of simplifying and clarifying the article. Again, I write this not to start a battle but to clarify for the future what is the acceptable method of cleaning up syntactical idiosyncrasies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammech (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Grammech, it took me a while to figure out what happened because the changes you made back in November were as an IP. I'm glad you decided to create an account. As for what you say, I'm afraid I disagree. You really changed quite a bit of content, including removing content within those changes, and the edit summary was misleading. For example, you removed content related to Cast Away and Road to Perdition, just to name a couple. That said, apparently what you want now (based on Hanks's Talk page) is a change to the sentence about Saving Private Ryan. I haven't seen the film, but I'll look a little into it anyway to see if I feel comfortable making the change. If not, some other editor may pick up on it. As for your choice of section header here ("not vandalism"), I was very careful in my admonition to you - I did not accuse you of vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoops

Hi there, I have to admit, that I seem to have forgotten answering this question. Do you still need an answer to that or did you understand it in the meantime? --Flominator (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I got an answer, although I'm not sure I remember what to do. My vague memory is that I wasn't doing something right to make sure the program searched all the way to the end, but I'd probably have to retrace my steps (I should have written it down) to find out the answer. Don't worry about it, though, it's kind of you to notice after all this time that you never answered the question and to come here to help.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Murdered vs. killed

I haven't seen the movie yet, but the book's dialogue would support the use of either word:

"Mr. Salmon," Len Fenerman said, "with the amount of blood we've found, and the violence I'm afraid it implies, as well as other material evidence we've discussed, we must work with the assumption that your daughter has been killed ... We'll be working with this as a murder investigation from this point out." (from p.28 of the original hardback). Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and going to the extra trouble to quote the book. I've seen the movie but, of course, don't remember precisely what the detective said, but I think the book quote supports the use of the word "murdered".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Artel Jarod Walker

This artricle is indeed a headache... what with puppets and all... and I appreciate your reverting yourself. But as this minor actor's article is apparently a strange hotbed of contention, I will work on a suitable replacement for it in my sandbox. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for my edit. Even my edit summary in my reversion was not accurate. Sigh, I must be tired, but I'm sincerely sorry for the hassle. Good luck working on something that will survive deletion. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I can simply consider this as good exercize in research and writing, as the problems caused by the article's earlier edits have pretty much negatively coloured attempts toward improvements. The one being created in my sandbox is already in better shape than the one being so hotly debated in mainspace, and I may be able to create something suitable asa replacement if the original and poorly-sourced effort is deleted. But again, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

CBS Express as a source

I've reverted your inclusion of the original press release from CBS Express and returned to the TV by the Numbers article as a source for Medium's cancellation. Aside from the fact that the article is a verbatim copy of the press release, AussieLegend in THIS EDIT raises the concern that only US servers can see CBS Express. KnownAlias contact 15:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Very nice of you to let me know, thanks (not to mention putting my content changes back in). Any idea why non-US servers can't access CBS Express?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

None; I was the one who put CBS in for the previous edit, or I might never have known about it myself when AussieLegend reverted it. KnownAlias contact 00:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a way to verify this. Maybe I'll pose a question at the Pump. Someone might know or might know how to figure it out. Frankly, it seems odd to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

In the case of Bradley Manning, to assess the legal and medical context of prolonged 23 hour/day solitary confinement, an authoritative source is required; otherwise, the significance of such isolation is left to the uninformed imagination. Consider these obvious questions:

• Is isolation like this controversial for some reason?
• If so, on what grounds?

It turns out that relevant and credible institutions have spoken on this topic:

• The ICRC has made prior statements that detentions of this nature violate the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. This is their realm of authority.
• In the United States, the APA is recognized as one of the leading institutions regarding human psychology. While not uncontroversial, it is clear that the views of the APA matter a great deal within the United States, both legally and socially.

By analogy, suppose this were an article about a person who'd been restricted to 100 mg of potassium per day for an extended period of time. Would this imply life-endangering dietary torture, or nothing at all? Most people would not know. Experts might have a range of opinions in borderline cases, but having in-context citations of one or more leading figures is clearly more helpful to the reader than just staring at a raw number.

By the same reasoning, in order to lend some understanding of the legal/medical implications of prolonged 23 hour/day isolation, some authority must be cited; I've cited the ICRC and APA because they seem both authoritative and influential. If you think others apply, please add them.

Note: the Wikipedia deletion policy encourages you to repair any imbalance you might perceive by enriching the article further, rather than removing well-documented and relevant content... particularly when the list of references already in place is short or non-existent. For this reason, I've undone your earlier reversion. JonDePlume (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the ping-back. Yes, I copied my remarks to both places in order to ensure you knew I wasn't just blowing off the comments you made. I've just added a bit more to the discussion page, and hope they clarify the intentions & rationale behind the inclusion of the ICRC and APA references. (p.s: happy holidays) JonDePlume (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Littlejohn

User:David r from meth productions has been canvassing [2][3][4][5]. Hard to tell how much impact this has had, they're all editors who have been previously involved with this article and would probably have had it watchlisted, but it is dissappointing. Wondering what to do with this, maybe back to WP:BLPN? January ^(talk) 21:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the the canvassing guideline:

The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary.

The problem is how do you evaluate the straw poll after the canvassing has taken place? I'd ask that question on another forum, although not sure which one, possibly BLPN, possibly EAR, possibly simply Help. Should we start with the notification, start with the question, or what?

I suggest that whatever else we do, we notify David. Do you want to do that because you discovered it?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I left him the standard {{uw-canvass}} yesterday. Still pondering over the straw poll. January ^(talk) 13:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Except in urgent cases, I think Wikipedia editors often act too quickly, so pondering is fine. Personally, I would be in favor of beginning a new subsection of the straw poll section on the Littlejohn Talk page informing others of the canvassing. Even though at this point there is no consensus on the poll issue, I think people should know that the poll has been potentially tainted. I'll wait, however, until you've had a chance to think about it some more.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

question

I have a question for you because it seems my first edits were not acceptable. What are the guidelines for citing things? When do things have to be cited or do all pieces of imformation require a citation? thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Roem (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory, just about everything must be cited. See WP:Citing sources. However, in practice the rules are often broken, depending on how significant the assertion is.

If you are referring to my reversion of your addition to the Carol W. Hunstein article, you added a completely new section and a description of Hunstein's dissent in a case. You didn't give a cite to the case. Other than giving the name of the case, you gave no way for the reader to understand whether how you described her dissent was true. Also, you failed to give a rationale for her dissent, which doesn't help explain how it's an "important ruling". Does that help you some?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand a bit better now. Would something like this be more appropriate?

In 2010, in Smith v. Baptiste, Hunstein dissented from a decision which held that there was no right of access to the courts; disagreeing with a majority decision to uphold parts of the Tort Reform Act of 2005. She relied on statements from the 1877 Georgia Constitutional Convention to argue for the right of access and accused the majority of "relying on an unofficial journalist’s account".

Lord Roem (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Much better. However, a few points. First, normally, you don't cite to a blog, although in this instance, it's probably okay because it appears to just provide a neutral summary of the case. However, even if you cite to the blog, I'd cite again to the opinion (two cites) for the quotation because it comes from the opinion itself. Second, you should note that another justice joined the dissent. Finally and most important, other than the fact the case is recent, I wouldn't include it in the article at all. It's not a "ruling" because it's a dissent. It's so recent that I assume no one has cited to it (not the opinion, but the dissent). So, what makes it important?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. You're probably right - it won't be seen as important until times passes and other commentators discuss it. I appreciate your assistance. Thanks :) Lord Roem (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Ringheim

I have declined your nomination for speedy deletion of this article. The single source, an article in a Norwegian newspaper, seems to confirm the allegations made in the article. Favonian (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed. I looked at the Norwegian article before I nominated it. I can't read Norwegian, so I did a Google translate of it. Of course, these kinds of translations are not always great, but it didn't seem to me that the translation supported the assertions in the article. If I understand the article properly, is it's a review of a documentary, and it's the documentary itself that "supports" the assertions in the article. To me, that wouldn't be a reliable source, particularly because we're talking about accusations against a BLP. Do you get something else out of it, or perhaps you don't think this kind of a problem qualifies for a speedy deletion but some other kind of resolution?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The article does a bit more than that. It looks like they have actually asked Steinar Karlsen from the Norwegian security services questions about Ringheim related to the allegations. Whether that's sufficient to meet the BLP requirements is a different matter, but I think speedy deletion may not be the way to go. Being Danish, I can read Norwegian (at least Bokmål), but I'm not familiar with this particular newspaper and its journalistic standards. Favonian (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have your advantage language-wise, but this is the only part I can see in the Google translation about asking Karlsen:

PST Steinar Karlsen has not even seen Trond Kvist['s] film about Richard Ringheim. He will not comment on what appears on film, but told BA that the PST has been in contact with Ringheim. We have listened to what he has told us, as we do with anyone who contacts us. But we have not used Richard Ringheim in any way. Beyond that, I have no comment on this.

That's almost nothing in terms of support of the article's assertions. Is there something else in the article I or the translation is missing? Or is that enough for you to decline speedy deletion? Please don't take this as my being argumentative - I'm simply trying to understand your position as an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I do see your point (and you're not the least bit argumentative). We are supposed to be "tough on BLP", and the source is weak. A Google search reveals this article which seems to indicate that Ringheim rather enjoys his unsavory reputation, but at present I'm inclined to follow your suggestion and speedy the article. If anyone objects, a new article may be created with a more cautious wording and better sourced. Favonian (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

More Norwegian for me to translate. :-) Google seems to have had a harder time with that one - the English translation is particularly stilted. I agree with you, though, that he comes across as enjoying the attention he gets. Thanks for the discussion and your open-mindedness. I've enjoyed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"you can't change another editor's rationale"

You said "you can't change another editor's rationale" - [6].

Yes, I can. I can do this if it seems to me to violate WP:BLP, for example, because that policy applies to all of Wikipedia and especially to material that appears in the main encyclopaedia at the head of a biography.

If you want to know why I changed it, you're free to ask. Before doing so, in order that you are fully informed of the possible background, you might care to read around WP:OTRS and see who the volunteer response team are and what we do. You might also want to check my background a bit: Special:ActiveUsers?username=JzG.

My guiding principle here is WP:NOTEVIL. We can happily delete autobiographies and hagiographies, but we can do it with class. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what you're saying. How did Yworo's rationale violate WP:BLP? The rationale is a "concern" that has to be examined. If I suspect that an article is an autobiography, I can state that as a rationale without violating BLP, just in the same way I can request the deletion of an image because I suspect the person who uploaded it doesn't own the copyright - my nomination doesn't mean my suspicion is true. I noticed you've changed it yet again, but this time I looked at Yworo's Talk page and you've sort of alerted him/her to what you've done, so I'll let Yworo do whatever s/he wishes. In any event, I think you were wrong to make your first change and wrong to make your latest change. I'm glad you enjoy being part of WP:OTRS, but I don't see what it has to do with anything. (To the extent it matters, your background link above is red.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bbb23. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 15:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't hesitate to continue any interesting discussions on my talk page. Kudpung (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Statements regarding an organization's policy are facts not editorial

Why did you state that this text is editorial? It concerns a policy and practice; how is that an editorial comment? "However, Wales does not have the authority to refuse such a request since Wikipedia policy is well established and decisions —particularly regarding critical issues such as censorship— are not made solely by him."Peace01234 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you're interpreting policy and practice. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you want to say something about Wikipedia's policy, you'd have to cite to a third-party source that says what Wikipedia policy is. You might be able to cite to the policy itself, but citing to a primary source is problematic and not necessarily everyone would agree with your interpretation (as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia editors argue all the time about policy and practice). In any event, if you feel strongly about it, my suggestion is you take it to the Wales Talk page and see what others have to say about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A Serious Man

Thanks so much for your interest in A Serious Man. The scenes with the Koreans are not quite logical but I have a copy of the script with me to double check the details. I appreciate your input. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you have a script in case we have an issue over accuracy, but my problem now is not with the substance but the grammar. Here's the material now after you reverted: "After Larry attempts to return it, Clive's father comes to his house to threaten either to sue for defamation if Larry accuses Clive of bribery, or for keeping the money if he does not give him a passing grade." Parsing the sentence, it says "threaten to sue" or "threaten for keeping the money". The second phrase is ungrammatical. I don't want to revert back because I'd rather hash it out here and reach an acceptable phrasing for both of us rather than reversions. I know the scene with the father is weird because, as Larry points out, the father makes no sense. On the one hand, he threatens Larry that if Larry says the son bribed him, the father will sue him for defamation. On the other hand, the father wants Larry to change the grade in response to the bribe.

How about this phrasing: "After Larry attempts to return it, Clive's father comes to his house and threatens to sue him for defamation if Larry accuses Clive of bribery. At the same time, the father wants Larry to keep the money and give his son a passing grade."

If that doesn't work for you, please come up with an alternative because we can't leave the article as is. Thanks for working with me on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, sorry for the inaccuracy. The 'either' was out of place. This is good for you?:

After Larry attempts to return it, Clive's father comes to his house and threatens to sue either for defamation if Larry accuses Clive of bribery, or for keeping the money if he does not give him a passing grade.

So, you're saying that the father threatened to sue Larry for keeping the money? I don't remember it that way, and I just saw the movie, but if you have the script, perhaps you could check. If the script bears you out, then the new wording is okay with me, although I'd prefer names rather than pronouns in the final clause ("if Larry does not give Clive a passing grade").--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

. . . I, uh. . . See, if it were defamation there would have to be someone I was defaming him to, or I. . . All right, I. . . let’s keep it simple. I could pretend the money never appeared. That’s not defaming anyone.

Mr. Park Yes. And passing grade.

Larry Passing grade.

Mr. Park Yes.

Larry Or you’ll sue me.

Mr. Park For taking money.

Larry So. . . he did leave the money.

Mr. Park This is defamation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'm smiling as I write this because the dialog reminds me of how completely disconnected the conversation was. Anyway, you can change it as you proposed and add names instead of pronouns as I prefer, or not, up to you. I'll try not to take it personally if you don't. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in. Yes, I did leave it pronouned, not of course for personal reasons but for a complex of considerations that we might not agree on. Respectfully --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Something bothers me about referring to Larry as a "Jewish professor of physics." Seems like it should be fixed. Do you have an idea on that? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me a lot, but I would slightly favor eliminating the word "Jewish". How it could escape anyone's notice that he is Jewish from reading the plot summary is beyond me.

Separate topic. I reworded the Soundtrack section, but, frankly, I'm confused. Why is the last Jefferson Airplane song not mentioned earlier when the other songs are mentioned? Am I missing something?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In defense of mentioning that it's a Jewish family, it would be quite strange if he wasn't Jewish and e.g. his wife suddenly wants a get, right? This way, though, connecting to his profession, is just odd. Maybe it should be cut.

I think the other song goes unmentioned because no one really knows where or if it is heard. I sure don't remember, do you? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like any of the wordings I can think of, but here's the best I've got so far: "Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), is a religious Jew and a professor of physics." I was trying to figure out during the film what kind of Jew the family was, i.e., reform, conservative, or orthodox. My best guess is conservative, but I have nothing to confirm that. Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say he's religious.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea. Watch the page and tell me what you think. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a killjoy, but I don't like it any better than before. Essentially you removed the Jewish from the sentence about Larry and combined the "new" sentence with the next. In other words, you just removed the word Jewish. Just as with the pronoun issue, I don't feel very strongly about it, so I'll leave it up to you to change it back, leave it as is, or try some other variation.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I think this is better. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I placed my response to you in my archive before you had a change to see it...

Hence this TB. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Mariah-Yulia, I noticed you weren't around for a while. Unfortunately, the storm never got resolved, at least not in my opinion, but as often happens in Wikipedia, the strongest editor "prevailed". Frankly, I don't much care whether the Jewish categories are in the Kunis article - I was just trying to resolve the inconsistencies in application and policy in dealing with these things. Anyway, I gave up, but I suppose, in the grand scheme of things, it's not really a big deal. I hope you had a nice holiday, and Happy New Year!--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Adequate sources

Hello, I was wondering why you think a letter to the editor by a person, and published by a well-known magazine isn't considered a good enough source (i.e. Esther Schapira)? I'm perplexed, thanks. see here: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2003/09/letters.htm How much better can a source be than the real thing?Unitrin (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, you are apparently relying on Schapira's letter at the bottom of the source. The main problem is whether the letter is real. See here ("Even the Times has been taken in by false letters - if the opinion is notable, it ought to be somewhere else."). That said, if you have trouble finding it elsewhere and you feel strongly that the assertion itself is important to the article (I'm not so sure it is), it would be better to reword the article so it's clear you're quoting Schapira's letter to the magazine.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, I've read through the three different category-related policies, and I do not see what parts are applicable to the edit. Can you kindly point the policy passages out specifically? Thanks!Unitrin (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief .. in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.

Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic.

Bottom line. Schapira must have self-identified as Jewish, supported by a reliable source, and her Jewishness must be relevant to her notability. Her self-identification must be specifically covered in the body of the article, not just somehow "apparent" from sources cited in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

EAR

Hi Bbb23. I hope the next suggestion I made at EAR is helpful, and that you are not offended by it. BTW, when removing a talkback template it's probably better to use 'Rm tb tpl' as an edit summary, and check it as 'minor' rather than 'undid revision by X'. All new edits to the Wikipedia are watched by a very large number of people, and many, unfortunately, regard the terms undo and revert as having an extremely negative connotation - especially if it concerns editors who have a very public image on the encyclopedia ;) Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why I put "thanks" in the edit summary when I undid the Talkback. It's the first time I've ever undone a Talkback. Usually I just blank it out in a straight edit. If I did it by straight edit, would it bother anyone? That strikes me as easier than an Undo and saying "rm tb tpl". Certainly, I didn't do it in any negative way. I just thought of doing it that way and it was easy.

As for your latest comment on EAR, I don't find it offensive, but I do disagree with it. RC added the phrase. It's his burden to support it. Besides, I looked at the transcript and couldn't find anything in it. Even RC seems to think it's somehow implied by something. Anyway, I will probably respond to your comment on EAR, but not tonight because I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do a straight edit without an es, if ever you were to run for adminship they would crucify you for not making edit summaries.;)

I know about WP:BURDEN of course, but I just thought if you were to post the details of the transcript, it might be a compromise, and then we could all have a look and offer our opinion. Mind you, you'd have to grin and bear it if consensus went the wrong way for you;) Kudpung (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the transcript is I can't find anything to support RC, so I would be posting nothing. For RC to say that the Coens refused to confirm something, the Coens would have to be asked about it and then refused. Although I relied on searches of the text rather than reading every word, I don't see that in the transcript. If, however, RC believes that's what transpired, then he should be able to easily post the passage in which the Coens refused to confirm it. He hasn't done that, and I'm not going to do more than I've already done. The whole thing is backwards. It should all be pretty easy. RC has added material with a source. Another editor says the source doesn't support the new material. RC should identify where and how the source does. RC is just being difficult (not the first time).

RC has since removed the coy part (after chastizing another editor for saying that coy was the wrong word), but retained has the same substantive assertion, albeit in a different spot. The chastized editor has said he's going to look at the transcript. I'll wait to see if he or someone else posts more info. I have nothing more to say at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's any consolation, I also said that the use of coy is not particularly encyclopedic and that it also introduces a sense of WP:OR, so I'm open to being chastized too - we'll see who has the most experience as a professional writer, and knowledge of Wikpedia policies and guidelines ;) Kudpung (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the chastized editor hasn't commented further yet, and no one else has, either. Just as in life, "right" doesn't always prevail on Wikipedia, so unless there is some push by other editors, RC's challenged assertion will remain. I've reached the point in my Wikipedia editing that letting go of these things is healthier for me than pushing. Many arguments at Wikipedia are circular, and I've stopped participating in them. Many things that may bother me don't appear to bother anyone else, so I let them go and move on. I've "lost" many discussions at Wikipedia. I don't necessarily accept that just because the majority of people in that discussion disagree with me that I'm wrong, but I, again, let go. I've even stopped watching certain articles that I think are not being edited properly because I haven't been able to make any headway in changing the prevailing views by the editors doing the editing. All of this is better for my anxiety levels and permits me to continue editing, which I enjoy, and to make constructive changes. I'll leave the endless swirling controversies for the thicker-skinned and stronger-stomached.

Returning to the issue with the movie article, if RC's assertion stands without any further elaboration by him as to the source of the assertion, so be it. My view won't change, but I'll probably stop watching the article (RC pretty much controls most of the edits to the article).

As always, I enjoy our discussions. Whether we always agree is unimportant to me. You are civil (even kind) and you explain your positions. One can't ask for more.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I'm being difficult. I sincerely hope it doesn't stress you too much but I have to mention that your summary above is extremely tendentious and rife with self-serving errors. As just one obvious example, you seem still to be unaware that 'coy' is used in encyclopedias (search britannica.com for the word and you'll learn it's used where it applies). Now I'm curious about something: do you want the article for A Serious Man to be accurate about whether or not the story is based on Job? Personally, I'm trying to be accurate. Are you trying to be accurate? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23's message above echoes almost verbatim a speech I made after being bullied off a long RfC about linguistics by a cabal of rank amateurs and corrupt, offensive admins a long time ago. After which I walked away and let them start bullying the next editor who complained about their tendentious tag teaming. All I'm interested in today is preserving the integrity of Wikipedia, and avoiding as much conflict as possible (read: staying civil) while doing it. That means implementing the policies even if I personally don't always wholly agree with them. As a professional linguist and lexicographer however, I fully understand the philosophy of encyclopedia building, and firmly uphold Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and verifiable sourcing. Kudpung (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My remarks were addressed to Bbb23. Thanks for your thoughts. I don't appreciate bullying either. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23, for making that edit. It more accurately captures the content of the transcript. ("Coy" is of course a perfectly fine English word, but its use presumes knowledge about another's intentions and was, in this context, plainly POV.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I made the edit. On the substance, I think you're mistaken. Perhaps you are overlooking that the Coens themselves do actually know what was the source, so there's no mind-reading involved on our end. Since they know whether or not Job was their source, it's not a stretch to say they're being coy (they are quiet about their intentions). Of course, another way to interpret the interview is that Job is simply not the source, since they mention something else, but I thought it was best to be generous to both sides. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they didn't answer on purpose - maybe they were reluctant, or they were feigning reluctance, or maybe in the course of a spirited discussion they simply lost sight of the original question (as it were). Who knows? The most that can be said about the interview is that, in the course of it, they did not identify Job as a source. Speculating about why they might not have is, well, speculation. Thanks too for your thoughts. JohnInDC (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ethan repeats the question before he answers to be clear on what he's answering, so it's not true that they lost sight of the question. I'm not sure why you're engaging in so much invention. Prima facie, they decline to confirm that Job is their source when the subject is put before them. Perhaps the evidence we have contradicts the view that the film is based on Job and it would be best to acknowledge that. After all, they are the authority on how they came to write the story. I'm not sure why we disavow their words. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see that we are not making much headway here, either in the implication of the word "coy" or what can be inferred from the Coen's answers, and I feel bad cluttering up this poor editor's Talk page, so I'm bowing out. Thanks for the debate. JohnInDC (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have posted on EAR the passage in the transcript I believe RC is referring to. I've also commented on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)