User talk:J-stan/Archives/2007/October
 | 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. |
Admin coaching
I'd be delighted to be your admin coach if you want me to. Take a look at User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Admin coaching/Cremepuff222/Tasks to see how I'm doing with Cremepuff222. If you're still interested after seeing that, I've created User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Admin coaching/J-stan/Tasks with a couple of things to get you started. Is that the sort of direction you wish to take things? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Appleteam
Hello J-stan. We just wanted you to know that we posted on our group page some changes we would like to do on the economy part of the Toluca article. We hope you can chek it out and give us your opinion.Thank you.Blueapple23 02:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)User:Blueapple23
Toluca Article
Hi J..this is Karina From Park_Lovers team, and we are going to modify the Toluca Article.. we would like you to check it and give us some ideas about it... thank you :D...you can check it in our talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Park_Lovers Arezvik 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent AfD's
Hi J-stan. Some of your recent AfD noms seem to have provoked some comments about using WP:OUTCOMES as a reason when nom-ing articles. (I.e., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CrossRoads_Middle_School). In general, I agree with your noms, I just think your reasons could be better stated. (I left more detailed comments in the AfD). Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 05:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Help with The Best American Poetry series
I've edited the RFC page on the editors comment though I'm not certain if you will see it or if I'm going about this in the right way. Please forgive me if I'm in error. In any event, I wonder if you would take a look at the RFC page and my comment there and offer your opinion. Thanks. WaverlyR 22:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Appleteam
Hello J-stan. We have already made the changes on the Toluca article. Please take a look at it and tell us what you think. Thank you!Blueapple23 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)User:Blueapple23
Robbie williams star 24576
Hi boss, check out the last 3 entries on my talk page by this guy Robbie williams star 24576, wierd ay? I think it's a trick or something, so I haven't acted on it, or replied to him. What do you think?
Also have you recently archived your talk page? Ryan4314 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
Dear J-stan/Archives/2007,
______ __ __ __
/\__ _\/\ \ /\ \ /\ \
\/_/\ \/\ \ \___ __ ___\ \ \/'\ __ __ ___ __ __\ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ _ `\ /'__`\ /' _ `\ \ , < /\ \/\ \ / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\
\ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\
\/_/ \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/ \/___/ \/_/
/\___/
\/__/
For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.
|
WP:BLP is one of the most important editing guideline on Wikipedia. It regulates existing content and allows for the removal of unfit content. It prevents edit wars and legal disputes against Wikipedia and its editors. It also protects the subject of the article.
Nobody likes an edit war. BLP prevents these from taking place by making only sourced, factual information acceptable for inclusion. The introduction to BLP states that we should "be very firm about the use of high quality references". Jimbo Wales put it nicely when he made his 2006 Wikimania keynote address: "we have very minor celebrities and sort of controversial people, they read their article on Wikipedia and if it isn't good, then they complain, they get upset". He goes on to describe possible further actions that could be taken by the subject as blanking the page a few times, and getting blocked for it. I know not what mode of communication was intended for this note, but the title makes the message quite clear: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.
Another important aspect of the relevance of BLP is that it protects the subject of the article from harmful publicity. When writing biographical articles, we need to take into account who will see the article: everyone with non-regulated internet access. Critics aren't always gentle, so we have sections of BLP regarding criticism to protect the subject from too many harsh opinions. We aren't making collections of critical essays, we are making a neutral, encyclopedic article. While preserving the neutrality, we are also protecting the subject from being harmed by serious rumors. We also must protect the privacy of the subject by allowing only relevant info. If it is irrelevant (BLP lists things such as home value and addresses), it should be removed per BLP and WP:N.
Administrators can enforce this policy in a number of ways. BLP mentions a few. One of these is blocking. It's pretty simple: an editor adds some bad, unsourced content, it gets removed, assuming good faith the whole time. But the user insists on it, and it gets added and removed another time. If the user is persistent, they should be blocked for disruption. Another of these is page semi- or full protection. If editors persistently add bad info through a method such as sockpuppetry or mass vandalism, the page should be given a level of protection, depending on the degree of anonymity taken by the users (IP or user accounts).
Now, deletion is a bit tricky. The jury is out on how much weight should be given to a deletion request by the subject of the article, so it is up to the administrators to decide how it should be treated (personally, if the subject has asked for deletion based on misleadingly false content, it should be protected, not deleted, with all false information removed. If at all unsure, I would seek guidance from a more experienced admin).
BLP is very important in regulating content and is to be strictly adhered to. Jimbo Wales summarized why we have a regulated system for Biographies of Living Persons when he said "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Encyclopedic content isn't biased, it is neutral, verifiable, and most importantly, true.
I have just noted another attempt to attack Arklow. I draw your attention to the following.
Wikipedia chat- Legal disputes are to be strictly avoided. Picture for a moment, a minor celebrity (we'll say an author) decides to Google him or herself just to find a few reviews of their work. Wikipedia is often in the initial ten Google results. So they click on the link to find some misinformation that could have been added with innocent intentions. The author is unaware of guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:NLT, and complains on the talk page, making a legal threat. Wikipedia has just lost an author, someone who could greatly contribute to Wikipedia, and could possibly (though not likely) face some form of legal action.
Note the Arklow litigation involves $3.43b. To date the defendants have tried everything. If I have to take legal action against someone I will do that for either reason; The person is ignorant and has no right to interfere, or may be working for some other interest group and so litigation against them will expose either.
The information on Arklow is correct. It is not bias, in fact it does not even cover the fraud of evidence, the murder of one of my witnesses New Zealand Herald Story - Island mourns young leader of vision Saturday July 10, 1999 By Rosaleen MacBrayne. Arklow is a complex legal issue and is open to review by any of the 40 strong legal team for the 17 defendants. It has already been looked at by Professor Rick Bigwood of Auckland University. If there were any problems they would appear on the talk page. Any unwarranted attack I promise will lead to an immediate writ being served to uncover the thinking and motive behind the attack. --WingateChristopher 01:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I left you a comment. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestion
[1] I'll consider it :) --86.29.37.121 23:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you might like to know that this nomination came up at WT:CSD. Just for the future consideration, as I note there, in my opinion this could have been speedied under Criterion G10, attack page. Dsmdgold 02:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Might I borrow a towel, I seem to have egg on my face. Sorry, I didn't notice your sig at CSD talk. Dsmdgold 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- You quit? I guess I'll throw in the towel as well. :) Dsmdgold 22:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Get (Conflict) Article
Sagbliss has gone "nukuler" on this. I don't think I've ever seen such screeds. Bruno23 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- It gets crazier. Check out her ramblings posts on Nishkid64's talk page. I don't think she appreciates that he can block her if she keeps going on this way. Bruno23 —Preceding comment was added at 12:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Appleteam
Hi J-stan. We already put our proposal for a stub in your sandbox. We now need your help because we dont know exactly what to do to upload the stub in wikipedia. Please help us!!! Thank you Blueapple23 21:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)User:Blueapple23
Hi. Thanks for contributing at the MfD. Userfying isn't appropriate, as WP:POLICY makes clear (my emphasis):
essays need not be proposed or advertised; you can simply write them, as long as you understand that you do not necessarily speak for the entire community. If you do not want other people to reword your essay, put it in your userspace.
If you think unofficial essays don't belong in project space, you'll need to change WP policy and then move a lot of essays. --Dweller 08:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
NONFREE
Yea I know, I get this from time to time, it's from the article I made. I think this is probably the last one that needs updating, I must admit tho, I've been away and haven't really been bothered to update this one. Ryan4314 12:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yea the removed one was one I let get removed, as I re-added it under a more suitable name. Ryan4314 22:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Proclamations
Well, someone is being Euphoric about the Red Sox victory in the world series. I for one am still in a state of denial that the Red Sox swept the series, I figured Colorado would win at least 1 game. Still and all though I feel happy your team came out on top :) -- An unlogged in TomStar81 (Talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
SO GOOD! SO GOOD! SO GOOD!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
and thanks for the message. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- No worries, J-stan. I'm an avid sports fan, and I was watching the TV with my twin sisters at 12:05 AM (I guess that's 04:05 UTC for the Wikipediholics). I also watched the end of the Patriots game on TV. I don't think talk page messages need to have spoiler templates (warning: if you didn't watch the Sox game, you deserve to have the ending spoiled for you by someone you've never met in real life).