User talk:Ponyo/Archives/December/2010

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

J. B. Eckl

Thanks for your efforts to reference this article :). I've now withdrawn the nomination. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. The only reason it even caught my attention was that it populated the November 2007 'Unreferenced BLP' category when you tagged it. Since that category had been previously deleted as empty I was curious what had been added. Curiousity may have killed the cat, but it also saved J. B. Eckl. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: quick question

Usually if someone's that adamant about keeping an image in, I just leave it. There's enough of them that we can concentrate on others first. There were a couple where i waited a year to retry removing them, so it can be a game of patience. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NPP

Hi Ponyo. I've noticed you expressing views on NPP. I was wondering if you are concerned enough, and would have time enough to join a work group or task force to address some of the more pressing problems of it. If you do, leave a note on my tp and I'll let you know as soon as there is a dedicated page somewhere for more discussion. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would love to be able to focus back on NPP patrol, but in the past few months the vast majority of my editing has been dedicated to WP:URBLPR (and the 6500 article watchlist I've developed as a result) . I do pop in to Special:NewPages when I'm burnt out from referencing, but not as often as I would like. I am interested in keeping informed with proposed changes to NPP as I really do believe that the only way to put a cork in the BLP problem is to attack it from all angles - backlog, wikiprojects, and new page patrol. If there are any substantial developments, please do let me know and I will be happy to contribute however I can. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 05:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I contacted you because of your work on uBLP - I work there too, but more in the background. The way the Wikipedia has evolved over the last decade means that everything that can be written on most truly encyclopedic subjects has probably now been written, and the bulk of the 1,000 or so new articles that arrive every day now is made up of crap BLP, corporate spam, and garage bands. You are quite right about putting a cork in the uBLP problem, and the most serious leak are the hundreds of unpatrolled articles that are allowed to escape scott free, unreferenced, untagged, unstubbed, and uncategorised, after 30 days. Bots don't even have a handle to grab them by. At this stage, I'm not so much looking for people to slog away for hours on the NPP backlog, but I'm looking for people who can help decide on, and hurry some new policy through that will improve NPP, and attract a greater number of experienced users to it. If you would like to join me on that, please let me know on my talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lena Lee

I see you tagged this article for CSD, but you forgot to click the link mark this page as patrolled, which is towards the bottom of the article. That means that the article stays in the new page list; meaning many different editors will open it thinking that it hasn't been dealt with (myself being one). I marked it as patrolled. I rcommend you using Twinkle, that will tag the article, mark it as patrolled and leave a note on the article creator's talk page, and all with a single click. Thanks. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't come across the article via New Page Patrol, so there is no 'mark this page as patrolled' link. If anyone comes across it in the backlog after it has been deleted they simply need to add '&action=markpatrolled' to the url to mark it as patrolled. Thank you for the suggestion, but I have no interest in using Twinkle. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whichever way you come across a page, it is your responsibility to clean up after yourself. You shouldn't expect other people to finish the job for you, or are you suggesting that your editing time is more valuable than anybody else's? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There was no 'mark as patrolled' link therefore there was nothing for me to click. I provided you with the '&action=markpatrolled' trick because it has come in handy in the past and not everyone knows about it. And it is not my responsibility to do anything other than follow Wikipedia's policies and adhere to guidelines as appropriate; if I don't edit in a style that is your personal preference <shrug> so be it. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: you provided the trick meaning you know exactly how to mark the pages as patrolled; with or without the link. Meaning you are choosing not to, and you're choosing to leave it to the next editor. So you're wilfully leaving mess for others to clean up. If you can't see what's wrong with that, then... This is a community, and for the good of the project you need to pull your own weight and clear up after yourself. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a note of the trick when I used to do new page patrol (before I became overwhelmed with the BLP project). I am not 'choosing' to do anything other than mark a page for deletion - it's not like I do a hundred a day, I marked a single article. Seriously, how many more articles could you have marked as patrolled in the time it has taken you to respond repeatedly on my talk page over a non-issue? That you are telling someone who spends about 8 - 10 hours a day referencing BLPS and writing new articles that they need to "pull their weight" is beyond the pale. As there are no outstanding policy issues here I have no intention of continuing this conversation, it is taking up time better used in creating an encyclopedia. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What delicious irony! Happy editing. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks!

Heh, I'm on a vacation right now and my mind is clearly elsewhere. Thanks for the catch! :) --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucky you! Somewhere warm and tropical, or back in Greenland? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Fisher

Ponyo: "Please do not add any personal info sourced to IMDB"

Hate to break this to you, pal, but IMDB is a heck of alot more authoritative than Wiki! If you have a better, more authoritative source for Fisher's marriage dates (ha, ha), then, by all means, cite it! Worc63 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The status of Wikipedia's reliability is irrelevant, the fact is that IMDB is not to be used as a source for biographical information. It has been discussed ad nauseum at WP:RSN and the result is always the same. If you would like to try to change that consensus, then that noticeboard would be the place to start. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Florence Bates religion

According to her bio she was the daughter of Jewish immigrants. Before I came along there was a category that read American Jews and Jewish actors in her slot and it was like that for some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selma Simpson (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Being the daughter of Jewish immigrants is not sufficient to be included in the category "Jewish x"; in addition, as is stated at WP:EGRS, the category must be reliably sourced (which it is not in this case) and the category must be specifically relevant to the individual (which is not the case). For these reasons the categories should not be added to the article, or any other article where WP:EGRS applies. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 02:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season

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

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

User_talk:Shylocksboy#Content_deletion

Are you sure about this? I don't want to open that reference URL now, but I seem to remember reading it last night, and the user was correct for removing that content. as stated in one of the edit summaries, the cite given doesn't verify the content. Thanks --CutOffTies (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The first time it was reverted as a dead link, but it wasn't dead at all and links to a perfectly valid Scottish Sun article that does mention Abi Titmuss. My mistake was not ensuring the content was supported by the source (honestly when the first part of the edit summary was false ("dead link"), I automatically discounted the rest). The last edit I undid was via a pop-up on my watchlist where all I saw was Shylocksboy's reversion of another editor's good faith restoration of the content as "vandalism". I've removed the offending material now and will follow-up on Shylocksboy's talk page. Thanks so much for bringing it to my attention, and I think the lesson to be learned is not to try to communicate through edit summaries, and talk pages exist for a reason :) --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello I deleted the contentious Abi Titmuss material (twice) because 1) it is nonsense 2) it is libellous. No magazine that is freely available in shops would ever show pics of a blow-up doll covered in faeces. This is obviously someone's idea of a joke. I deleted it because it is surely a vandalisation of the page. The link was to an interview with porn star Ben Dover not as was stated an interview with Abi Titmuss. Hope this clears up this matter. --Shylocksboy (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello - the original edit introducing the false information was likely vandalism, but the edit summary you used when reverting Edward32 ("vandalism") gave the appearance that you were calling his restoration vandalism, which it was not. At the end of the day you were doing your best to clean-up the old vandalism edit which is certainly appreciated. As I mentioned above I think the confusion came about as everyone was attempting to talk via edit summaries; as soon as we started speaking to each other everything became much clearer. Apologies for jumping to conclusions and I hope my striking the message on your talk page will work as an apology - you can of course delete it altogether if you choose. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. I was just worried that I was about to be blacklisted for trying to make the site accurate and removing material which was tasteless in the extreme. --Shylocksboy (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines that can sometimes be overwhelming to new users. The intent of my message was to highlight the most relevant to your editing that you would likely find useful given your area of interest. At no time was there any mention or even thought regarding requesting a block of your account. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phrasia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Phrasia#19_December_2010 - the picture was added again last night, I made this report, if you have any additional details to add, please do, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for taking one for the BLP team in putting together the SPI report. Will pop over there shortly and see if I can help. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, it's already sorted. That was the speediest SPI ever! --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, good residence to him. Your original input was what clinched it, well done Ponyo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Eleanor Thatcher (actress)

Hi, can you remove the actress from the title of the article because with it there it is hard to have it appear on Google and Yahoo! searches. If you could that be great! Selma Simpson (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You have just created another article without linking to any reliable sources. Where did you obtain the information to write the article? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope you might take a look...

I have been trying to address the article issues that exist apart from concerns over a hoax image. Please see "WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#but aside from the hoax picture..." Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Image template

Hi Ponyo. Re this edit, is your edit summary a personal observation or preference, or is it WP policy? Where could one find it in writing? Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the delay in responding, I had to pop offline for a bit. If you read the parameters at Template:Infobox person, under the instructions for "image" the directions are "Do not add File:Replace this image male.svg, File:Replace this image female.svg or other placeholder images; a discussion for the use such placeholders resulted in no consensus for the mandatory removal of the images on existing pages, however it is suggested that they not be added to new articles.". There have been a couple centralized discussions, and the most recent consensus was that, although there was no need for a bot or other systematic approach for removing the existing templates, they were not to be newly added to any biographies. Kudos for adding the sources to the Satoru Kobayashi by the way. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for that. I won't do it now. Thank you for explaining, & for your kind words re the sources.

Oh, BTW, I wonder if you could show me how to fix Diána Kőszegi?

I wanted to move her pic from == Gallery == up to infobox, but it kept being ginormous & |thumb did nothing!

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved it for you, you have to force a resize by noting the desired size after the pipe symbol (|) (generally 220px for bio infoboxes). Many of the templates automatically size the image to 220, but the Go Player one apparently does not. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah - thanks. I see what I was doing wrong. I'd tried putting the |220px (or |thumb) on the line after, instead of inside the [[]]. I'll remember that. Merci encore. Trafford09 (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Bienvenue et Joyeux Noel :) --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

:) Trafford09 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ciaran McCarthy

Maybe I was a bit too hasty with Ciaran, but even being current he's a very minor character, and no he doesn't have a major storyline at the moment. Actually I do stand by the choice to redirect, not much has been done to expand the article upon his return in February, it's all in-universe and relying on a single reference. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 10:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that he's a 'very minor character'. As part of the WP:BRD cycle you were "Bold" in redirecting, the redirect was "Reverted", and now comes the "Discussion". The discussion needs to take place on the article talk page and consensus needs to be reached prior to redirecting the article again. You could also make a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street (where I see you are already active) to ask them to join in on the discussion - more people will probably join in than if you simply waited for editors to stumble on to the Ciaran McCarthy talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll agree to disagree. I'll leave it as it is for the moment, and bring it up on the Project talk at a later stage. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! By the way, kudos for taking on the Corrie clean-up as you have, it can't be easy. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

When I saw you merged Ciaran I thought it was a bold move, however thinking about it. We did reach consensus to merge the poor articles. It's a shame, there are many refs and notability is ok, like everyone there are articles higher in my list of priorities... I do agree with merging, because it will make the editors who make the little contribs work a little harder to get them the stand alone articles again. ;) We can't keep editing every soap opera article amongst the seven of us highly active editors forever can we? lolRAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)