User talk:Tvoz/Archive 7
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
archive 7 Jan-June 2011 minus a few kept live
Jack Warden
- Warden's father, John Warden Lebzelter, is listed in the Kentucky Death Records (1938) at ancestry.com - the record also gives the names of his parents - Catherine O'Brien and Phillip Lebzelter - which is how I was able to trace their ancestry further back. Warden's paternal grandfather, Phillip Lebzelter, was the son and grandson of German immigrants to Pennsylvania. Ironically, his brother's first name was "Christian". Much of the ancestry of the grandfather's parents had already been traced here (the Martha Ackerman and Johann Wilhelm Lebzelter), and his ancestors had been getting married in Evangelical Lutheran Churches for generations (German Lutherans in Pennsylvania ended up being called Pennsylvania Dutch). The person who created the genealogy was Michael Huey (bio here), who self-published a book on the Lebzelter genealogy in 2001. As for Warden's paternal grandmother, Catherine O'Brien - according to the 1900 census, her father was from Ireland and her mother from Canada, so I presume she was neither Jewish nor Pennsylvania Dutch.
- Is all of this original research? Of course it is. But luckily, I managed to find a Los Angeles Times article/interview from 1958 that described Warden as being of "Dutch-Irish descent". This is literally the only reference I could find in a newspaper to Warden's background during his lifetime. Nothing else, newspaper or book, went into it at all during his life - and no references at all stated that he (or his father) was Jewish - an omission that would be surprising if he really was Jewish, considering how many Jewish characters Warden had played during his lifetime.
- That leaves us with The Guardian's obit, published the week after he died. We already know it isn't accurate because it says he was "from a poor Jewish family", but even the IMDB says that his mother, Laura Costello, wasn't Jewish.
- As far as I was able to find, that obit is the only reference that has ever existed to Warden being of Jewish ancestry - the only one in his very extensive 50-year career. In a general sense, the L.A. Times article would be more reliable because it had Warden's personal involvement (he was interviewed), while the Guardian article did not. In a specific sense where I know what I do, I'd have to surmise that the Guardian gleaned it from the IMDB, as they have other things (The Guardian's writing in September 2006 that Sacha Baron Cohen's mother was of Persian Jewish descent, copied from the then-unsourced Wikipedia entry, also inspired a long and endless discussion on that page, and is also inaccurate). As for the IMDB, I have no idea why the writer of the IMDB bio, Jon C. Hopwood, decided that Warden's father was Jewish (I guess because his last name can sound Jewish). He even mentions (in the IMDB bio) that Warden had talked about all this in an interview - but I was not able to find any such interview, nor any interview where Warden talked about having any Jewish ancestry. Like I said, the only reference available on his background during his lifetime was the 1958 L.A. Times profile. Anyway, Jon C. Hopwood is not a reliable source. However, not having researched this before, I had presumed that he was correct (i.e. that Warden's father was really Jewish) and was more than a little surprised to find out that the IMDB bio was way off (although that explained the lack of other sources). If you are really interested, maybe you can find some way to contact Hopwood and ask him to produce this interview.
- As for his birthname - I'm sorry I reverted that along with the other edits. Some sources list him as having been born "John H. Lebzelter" (presumably the H stood for something). However, I see that Warden's World War II enlistment record lists him as "John W. Lebzelter", so I suspect your change to "John Warden Lebzelter" is correct. I'll revert it to that. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed explanation - clearly this was not an off-hand edit on your part. Your research is pretty convincing - although I'm never too comfortable with the approach of trying to find RSes to support OR, I did find it odd that there was not any other independent discussion of his background out there, as just about all of the Google hits could be traced back to the earlier Wiki article wording and therefore irrelevant. The Hopwood IMDB piece is the one that I do wonder about, as it goes into some detail - conjured up from where? I'm not ready to dismiss it out of hand (I know nothing about Hopwood), but unless we locate that interview, I agree that Hopwood's bio is not enough on its own. I think it might be helpful to re-post this exchange on the article talk page, if that's ok with you, so if anyone else comes along wondering about this, your reasoning will be available to them. Tvoz/talk 19:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea, please do so. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed explanation - clearly this was not an off-hand edit on your part. Your research is pretty convincing - although I'm never too comfortable with the approach of trying to find RSes to support OR, I did find it odd that there was not any other independent discussion of his background out there, as just about all of the Google hits could be traced back to the earlier Wiki article wording and therefore irrelevant. The Hopwood IMDB piece is the one that I do wonder about, as it goes into some detail - conjured up from where? I'm not ready to dismiss it out of hand (I know nothing about Hopwood), but unless we locate that interview, I agree that Hopwood's bio is not enough on its own. I think it might be helpful to re-post this exchange on the article talk page, if that's ok with you, so if anyone else comes along wondering about this, your reasoning will be available to them. Tvoz/talk 19:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation?
Tvoz, I uploaded a bunch of photos (a couple of musicians photos that I didn't even know, too). Whenever I find a photo for a page without one, (generally necessary) I end up creating an infobox, putting the pic in there, copyediting and cleaning up the whole article. Then, I check for typos, etc, and unless it's an article I plan to edit regularly, I move on. This time, uploading and fixing Tift Merritt, I thoughdt I'd do a little extra bit of citing, and went to the official website for info. Here's the band part: the entire article appears to be copied from that official website. The only real visible change is my re-wording to remove POV crap in the past 2 days. What to do? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I think mentioning it to an Admin. is best. I just looked at the official website again, and 95% is almost word for word without my tiny wording changes. But who? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Leah. If you don't want to rewrite it yourself, choose the most appropriate template from here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance#Copyright violations and put it on the top of the page. And post something on WP:ANI to attract admin attention. Tvoz/talk 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, you really are quick! I sent a note to User:Sandstein (an Admin.) mentioning my worries right after writing you. But thanks; didn't se the incident report. It's possible that the copyvio began as far back as 2005. I really hate it when it's like that.. Ah well.. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Criminal Minds
Two reverts isn't a violation of 3RR, and isn't edit warring. I have begun a talk page discussion on the matter. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please read WP:3RR. My comment here that you removed clearly said "at the brink of" and "on the verge of" 3RR. Two reverts of the same material in just over an hour is indeed on the brink of 3RR, and it certainly can be seen as edit warring. And 3RR is not an entitlement to make 3 reverts, as I said. Thank you for bringing it to Talk now however. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Alice Ochs
Nice job hunting down an obituary. I tried last month but I couldn't find anything.
I think Phil would have been shocked that she became a minister. 
— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I know! Crazy! Had no idea about that - she is in the film, but nothing about what she's done since then, not even her photography. I'm glad I found that too - Sonny's note that was posted on the list provided truth, but not verifiability..... You saw that it's coming to your neck of the woods? Tvoz/talk 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I can hardly wait! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Ref names
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
More eyes needed on Talk:Health care reform in the United States
Hello,
An IP editor has been aggressively/passionately arguing for an addition to Health care reform in the United States about how the individual mandate is a bill of attainder which is apparently illegal. The IP editor tried to edit war in the addition then went to the talk page to continually push the point. I and another editor asked the IP editor to provide sources for the criticism so we could work on it and see if it should be added, but all we got continually were law excerpts, supreme court rulings, etc not directly on the bill from the IP editor with his/her interpretations of those excerpts. When the IP editor did finally proved a good source, we wanted to see if we could write something, but the IP editor reverted back to their previous pattern of excerpt quotes and interpretations.
I was hoping for a couple more eyes on the situation so that something good can come of this because I'm getting to my wits end and I don't have the time for the continual back and forth. Like I stated on the talk page, if it can be neutrally written, then it should be added.
Thanks for taking a look. Brothejr (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The/the Beatles
Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [1] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Mark Kelly
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mlm42 (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice--M. Kelly
Good edits!--Utahredrock (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
General question
I've noticed that the better Wikipedia articles seem to have no references in their leads. Is this handled by insuring that all facts are fully referenced in the main body of the article? I am hoping to keep improving Mark's article, and despite the amount of edits I've done off and on over the years, I still feel like somewhat of a novice--especially on certain issues.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it kind of varies (what else?). Anything controversial or contentious always should be cited everywhere, but since intros are supposed to be summaries of the body, often just having good cites in the body is enough for non-contentious material. This is usually decided by consensus of the editors working there - some people really don't like breaking up the intro with cites. I personally don't care that much about this, so I can go either way other than not wanting to see a long string of references to one point. As for policy on this, see WP:LEADCITE. Tvoz/talk 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I may tackle that later. I kind of like the lead without the citations. For now I want to get the references shaped up. I also want to get this article ranked higher. That's something I've never played with--or at least not much or not successfully.--Utahredrock (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hoping for your input on this
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_E._Kelly#Any_suggestions.3F_RE_Spouse_of_member_of_Congress --Utahredrock (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the request from the talk page and came up with an edit. Your input is always welcome. It's regarding that Kelly is the only spouse of a member of congress to go to space. Seems important enough to keep, but not important enough for the opening. --Utahredrock (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Good Article status?
You and Mlm42 have been great collaborators on Mark Kelly, thanks. I am curious about how to take it to the next level. I'd like to nominate it for a Good Article community review. I think it's just about ready. Any comments? Thoughts? I am still not in love with the opening, but am stuck with what we have for the moment.--Utahredrock (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cresix (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Affleck
Sincerely, Thank you for the help on Ben Affleck. I liked the Forbes source, but realized that what caught me on it, was that Ben's compensation was within a mere "rounding error" of the total gross of the movie Pearl Harbor. But all ironies should not make it into encyclopedia articles. He is one of my favorite actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughey (talk • contribs) 13:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC) ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughey (talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. As you likely realize, what was bothering me - in addition to the "rounding error" (whatever that means) mentioned in the source - is there had been no indication of why that one year's salary was being singled out in our article, and your original placement of it with that poor source, in juxtaposition with Affleck's comments about CEO salaries, appeared to be a POV commentary about his politics, and classic OR/SYNTH, which of course is not going to fly. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Good edit
Thanks for catching my poor mistake on the Swedish Judicial v Assange article. I had actually made a number of changes and didn't notice I had put "cooling of bipartisanship" in there by accident. :) -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think the political climate/reactions section could probably be combined with other commentary. I've been trying to work back through the article (albeit slowly) to try and pare out the bits that are less encyclopedic, and also bring it a little more cohesiveness. -- Avanu (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please take a look at the big edit I just did on that section and let's talk about it on Talk:2011 Tucson shooting if you disagree with what I did. I certainly don't want to get into revert wars on this - see my comments there. Cheers Tvoz/talk 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tvoz. Should Malia Ann Obama be reverted back to a redirect? Some of the content there is not neutral and may violate BLP (e.g. "It is notable that the press issued stories solely about Malia and her mother's trip to Brazil even though the President also went.") Cunard (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh great, not again. Yes, it should be a revert to the family article. Thanks for the heads up - I;ll take a look. Tvoz/talk 05:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for redirecting the article. I didn't know whether there was a new discussion about creating a separate article so didn't do the redirect myself. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just read it - I am amazed no one flagged it sooner for its content, let alone just for the fact that it shouldn't have been created. I didn't see it - thanks for letting me know. Tvoz/talk 06:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is surprising that it lasted for so long. I hope you've placed the page on your watchlist, as I've had to revert another attempt at creating a separate article. Cunard (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- And now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bouvier Kennedy (3rd nomination). Sigh. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pure disruption, and extremely suspicious. Time for some checkuser action, I believe. Tvoz/talk 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kewlarticle. Feel free to add other accounts if you remember which sockmaster this is. Cunard (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that - you can see the results, which went almost exactly where I expected them to be, including uncovering one or two that I'd been suspicious of for a long time. The "unrelated" checkuser report has happened with others of his socks before - behavior still points to him. Tvoz/talk 05:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. At a cursory glance through his old accounts, he appears to be a long-term sock with quite a history. Hopefully, the blocks that'll be placed on those accounts will prevent his disrupting Wikipedia for a while. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes indeed - more disruptive than you can imagine. My radar for him has been shown to be pretty accurate on this - sometimes checkuser doesn't reveal it, but behavior does. Glad to have uncovered a few more, including a couple I've noticed for a while. There's no doubt in my mind about this latest one, by the way, so behavior will have to be the indicator. Tvoz/talk 16:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. At a cursory glance through his old accounts, he appears to be a long-term sock with quite a history. Hopefully, the blocks that'll be placed on those accounts will prevent his disrupting Wikipedia for a while. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that - you can see the results, which went almost exactly where I expected them to be, including uncovering one or two that I'd been suspicious of for a long time. The "unrelated" checkuser report has happened with others of his socks before - behavior still points to him. Tvoz/talk 05:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kewlarticle. Feel free to add other accounts if you remember which sockmaster this is. Cunard (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pure disruption, and extremely suspicious. Time for some checkuser action, I believe. Tvoz/talk 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just read it - I am amazed no one flagged it sooner for its content, let alone just for the fact that it shouldn't have been created. I didn't see it - thanks for letting me know. Tvoz/talk 06:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Monica Lewinsky
I am just noticing that you removed the video but the article retains the following content: "News of the Clinton–Lewinsky relationship broke in January 1998. On January 26, 1998, the president claimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" in a nationally televised White House news conference." It does not make much sense to me to remove the video which helps the reader to understand what this section is describing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tony - this article is her bio. The section on the scandal is supposed to be a shorter summary of the longer daughter article Lewinsky scandal - we give the quote in the bio, but we don't need to have the video in the bio, if it is in the daughter article, which it now is. Frankly, I don't see that the video is needed anywhere. It doesn't really add anything beyond the quote itself - it's not exactly hard to understand what's being described - but ok, the daughter article can take it. But in my opinion it's overkill to have it in both the bio and daughter article. Tvoz/talk 06:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I am creating my first audio and video files this month. I am not an expert, but it seems that in articles where the quote is used, that content is important. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand what videos add to articles, but I am not expert on them. They show what the heck you are blowing wind about in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ha- and admittedly I try to stay as far away as I can here from images, audio and video, because the arcane rules and regulations about them give me a serious headache... so this may be a question of personal preference or how much one can take. My point about the Monica Lewinsky article, though, is that a video of Clinton talking about education reform, even though it ends up with a sentence about her, seems to me to be out of place and unnecessary in this summary section of a BLP about her. The long daughter article, Lewinsky scandal, is the more appropriate place for a video making reference to the scandal, but truthfully even in the scandal subarticle I'm not convinced that the whole clip belongs there - it's a 6 minute video about education reform, the vast majority of which has nothing to do with the scandal. And the part that does, the last minute or so, doesn't go beyond the text - the words are the same so I don't think it adds that much. I don't really object to having something in the subarticle, but I do question having the entire 6 minutes even there - maybe it can be edited down. On the other hand, if there were an interview of Monica talking, and we summarized what she said in the text, a video giving the actual words would be of interest, and probably could work in her bio. But this video of Clinton just doesn't seem to me to be right for the bio and has too much extraneous stuff even for the scandal subarticle. So I am not attacking videos per se - just the placement of this one on the one hand, and the scope of it on the other. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- In terms of scope, the article is up for debate at WP:FSC and the general topic of clipping long speeches is up for discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates#Editing_down_of_longish_speeches_.28and_other_sounds.29. Basically, the speech has political context that says Clinton wanted to make clear Lewinsky was a footnote among his issues of the day. Clipping the speech to make a soundbite is what a sensationalist media might do, but we should not, IMO. We should present the entire context for the reader.
- In terms of placement, we are dealing with whether we want the newspaper, radio or television version of the story. We have the opportunity to supplement the newspaper version of that component of her bio with a television version. It is not like her article has so much content that the reader will be overwhelmed. Additionally, adding a video does not impose much of a cost on people who don't want to see it, but provided great benefit to those who do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tony, it's her biography, not a place for a discussion of his motives, his political context, his thought process. And you would need a third party analysis of the statement, not your own - and this is sounding more like OR/SYNTh than a mere illustration of the text. A clip could fit in Lewinsky scandal, or the Clinton presidency article, but I will argue against it in Monica Lewinsky (and in any case the editors at those articles would consider what to include, not just the FSC commenters). I understand quite well what the political context is of the 6 minute video, and why you want to include the whole thing, but I think it is editorializing to include the whole thing, most of which is irrelevant to the scandal, in order to make your point that she was a footnote - your point, not his stated point, not a sourced third party analysis. Frankly, that's just as much of a problem as making a sensationalist soundbite might be. But to include the relevant material only - which is the part starting with "Now I have to go work on my state of the union address" - is not sensationalist, it is merely the relevant portion. As for your last point, the story is not different based on whether it was in the newspaper, radio or television - the story is the quote, and all of the reliable sources I've looked at that discuss this or provide the video or audio, give the quote itself with at most the leadup as we have it in the text. Tvoz/talk 08:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your point. I do not agree. However, I will rest with it remaining excluded from her article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Tony, it's her biography, not a place for a discussion of his motives, his political context, his thought process. And you would need a third party analysis of the statement, not your own - and this is sounding more like OR/SYNTh than a mere illustration of the text. A clip could fit in Lewinsky scandal, or the Clinton presidency article, but I will argue against it in Monica Lewinsky (and in any case the editors at those articles would consider what to include, not just the FSC commenters). I understand quite well what the political context is of the 6 minute video, and why you want to include the whole thing, but I think it is editorializing to include the whole thing, most of which is irrelevant to the scandal, in order to make your point that she was a footnote - your point, not his stated point, not a sourced third party analysis. Frankly, that's just as much of a problem as making a sensationalist soundbite might be. But to include the relevant material only - which is the part starting with "Now I have to go work on my state of the union address" - is not sensationalist, it is merely the relevant portion. As for your last point, the story is not different based on whether it was in the newspaper, radio or television - the story is the quote, and all of the reliable sources I've looked at that discuss this or provide the video or audio, give the quote itself with at most the leadup as we have it in the text. Tvoz/talk 08:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ha- and admittedly I try to stay as far away as I can here from images, audio and video, because the arcane rules and regulations about them give me a serious headache... so this may be a question of personal preference or how much one can take. My point about the Monica Lewinsky article, though, is that a video of Clinton talking about education reform, even though it ends up with a sentence about her, seems to me to be out of place and unnecessary in this summary section of a BLP about her. The long daughter article, Lewinsky scandal, is the more appropriate place for a video making reference to the scandal, but truthfully even in the scandal subarticle I'm not convinced that the whole clip belongs there - it's a 6 minute video about education reform, the vast majority of which has nothing to do with the scandal. And the part that does, the last minute or so, doesn't go beyond the text - the words are the same so I don't think it adds that much. I don't really object to having something in the subarticle, but I do question having the entire 6 minutes even there - maybe it can be edited down. On the other hand, if there were an interview of Monica talking, and we summarized what she said in the text, a video giving the actual words would be of interest, and probably could work in her bio. But this video of Clinton just doesn't seem to me to be right for the bio and has too much extraneous stuff even for the scandal subarticle. So I am not attacking videos per se - just the placement of this one on the one hand, and the scope of it on the other. Tvoz/talk 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I am creating my first audio and video files this month. I am not an expert, but it seems that in articles where the quote is used, that content is important. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand what videos add to articles, but I am not expert on them. They show what the heck you are blowing wind about in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
?
What the fuck was that revert on Jimbo's talk page is. That was a constructive edit by a constructive user. You know rollback is only for clear cases of vandalism. mauchoeagle 07:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea how that happened and wasn't even aware that it had - I was not reading Jimbo's talk page and did not deliberately do rollback. I must have clicked and not realized where my cursor was while I was looking at my watchlist. Thanks for letting me know. Tvoz/talk 07:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Rollback
Hi Tvoz. The rollback problem may be resolved through adding code to your vector or monobook pages. From Ucucha (talk · contribs) at User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch76#Eyeglass fund:
Placing
.page-Special_Watchlist .mw-rollback-link {display:none;}on Special:MyPage/vector.css or Special:MyPage/monobook.css (whichever you are using) will hide the link from the watchlist. Ucucha 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope this works. Best, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, but I have not had a rollback problem as far as I know, so don't really want to remove it - I think it must have been a wayward click when I wasn't watching my cursor. Tvoz/talk 07:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Need your opinion
Hey Tvoz, I bumped into the article for Amanda Palmer, just checking up on how some articles are doing --at least the ones I add photos to.. OK. It's a freaking mess, but aside from that, having bolded in the lead is some comment about how she is "sometimes known as Amanda Fucking Palmer". I don't care if it's sourced or not, myself; I have seen some weird stuff doing the Wikignome gig I seem to apply myself to, but it's like saying that Tupac Shakur was a jazz artist, just b/c someone could hear the slightest hint of it in one obscure song, or something. It isn't what people think of in describing a musician. Ditto for Amanda Palmer. I wanted your input there, since it's dicey. You are involved with the Village Pump, whereas nobody knows who I am. SIGH. Sometimes I really do believe any barnstars I have received (few) --I like to keep on my user page just to keep newbie editors from reverting sensible edits and the like. It's also a reason why I don't get involved in controversial articles like you do. Please look at it and take whatever measure you see fit? Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Leah, actually I have nothing to do with Village Pump at all - don't know where you got that idea. I don't know anything about Amanda Palmer (although I've met her husband), but take a look at the article Talk page - this has apparently been discussed and some editors there say this nickname is how she calls herself - I have no idea, and I'm not going to get involved in something I know nothing about. So if it bothers you, go ahead and research it and see if including it is justified or not, and if not, bring it up on Talk. But since Wikipedia doesn't censor, you won't get much traction on that basis.Tvoz/talk 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: this edit and my rationale behind it. The tone of my first Comment was a trifle snarky (at the time I seem to remember a run of errant corrections) & the wording did run too long, so I adjusted the wording to give the reason for the BU being capitalized in BUtterfield 8 (rather than only the 'No'). Regardless of my reasons, the consensus seems to be short & pithy, so I'll leave the Comment at that. Short & pithy will probably keep the errant-correctors at bay. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I didn't disagree with your original note or its tone, given the run of mindless "corrections", and at first I left it there in the first spot, but on reconsidering I thought it was a bit much, and probably not more effective than just the short pithy one. I deal with this on Marshall McLuhan where well-meaning people continually change the spelling of "massage" to "message", despite hidden notes right there - doesn't seem to matter if the note is sweet or nasty, long or short! Let's hope the determined interest in getting rid of that pesky upper case U will pass.... Cheers back Tvoz/talk 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am hopeful the flood of reverts on the movie title will slow the (un)corrections down. Maybe a Note could be placed in a 'Notes' section, stating that BUtterfield 8 was a well-known Manhattan Upper East Side telephone exchange at one time...or even some text in the article itself, something along the lines of BUtterfield 8's Title section. Oddly enough the movie article itself hasn't seemed to have gotten the slew of errant-corrections, but perhaps that is because the readers who seek it out know the actual title already, as opposed to people who find the main Taylor article and don't know very many facts about the woman's career. (And I am sure that McLuhan's article gets a ton of odd corrections...) Shearonink (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Lennon vandal
Hello there,
I'm spending hours undoing the edits by 69.231.228.193, who's re-doing them as we speak. Can someone block him? Hope you're well ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, Hot, I just play one on TV. But if this hasn't been taken care of, it should be posted on WP:AIV - I'll take a look. Also may be time for semi-protection for a while. All's well here - you too I hope! Tvoz/talk 02:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see the problem is not confined to one article - I'd have to look at little closer at this to be sure it's vandalism not good faith error before calling him on that, (not that I doubt your judgment, just want to be sure) - but at the very least appears to be serious violation of 3RR. Tvoz/talk 03:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. I've reverted a lot of what he did too, but at this point I am losing track of what's right on these individual songs, so maybe you can take a look at his contributions and verify the ones where his edit is marked "Top". I asked for him to be blocked, but for reasons unclear to me the request was considered stale a few hours later, so they didn't do it. With any luck, maybe he's gone, but if you see this start up again let me know and I'll pursue the block. On top of everything else, his prose edits are full of absurd typos - I'm not getting "good faith" vibes from this, but I don't know. I do know that this is taking up too much time. Let's see what happens. Tvoz/talk 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hope all's well. I traced him to Los Angeles, so he/she does the handywork later on... Hotcop2 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh joy. Check Well Well Well (John Lennon song) - originally said artist was POB, he added JL, I changed back, then changed to JL - at this point not sure what's right. Thx. Tvoz/talk 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like there are a few songs originally credited as POB - I don't know what's right, maybe you do. Tvoz/talk 16:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Hope all's well. I traced him to Los Angeles, so he/she does the handywork later on... Hotcop2 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Concerning this edit, I'm not sure how familiar you are with our non-free content guidelines, but neither mere illustration nor verification are acceptable reasons for using non-free content. Basically, our question has to be whether the article can survive without the image, whether the image shows something that has to be seen by the reader. I am not convinced that knowing what the cover of a book by the subject of the article looks like is so important that a non-free image must be used. You'll note that very few author articles use non-free book covers (a featured article, a good article, another featured) and it's because the covers themselves are rarely of such high importance. If you are familiar with our non-free content criteria and still believe that this image meets them (specifically, the concern is with regards to criterion 8) could you please explain why? J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- J, of course I'm familiar with these criteria, but I don't agree with them. Common sense on this is clear to me - of course the book cover adds value to the article. The arcane rules that have been developed here about what is acceptable and what not have little connection to normal fair use guidelines in the academic world, for example, and I usually just stay out of it and don't comment, because it's a losing battle. But to suggest nothing is added by the cover is to me on the face of it wrong, whatever our policies are. The result of these misguided policies are an encyclopedia with far fewer images than we should have, and I've yet to hear a convincing argument for why that has to be. I object to the removal of the image, but I'm not going to fight it. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Of course I'm familiar with these criteria, but I don't agree with them"- Ok, that's fine, you don't have to agree with them. Equally, there are guidelines I think are stupid, but, while I'm here, I'm going to respect them, as that's how this project works. IAR is fundamental, but that does not mean we should ignore policies we don't like, it's there to help us in unforseen circumstances. If it's something I very strongly disagree with, I'll do my best to change it; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I could offer you a defence of our NFCC, but I doubt you're interested- however, what I will say is this: If you are aware of the fact you disagree so strongly with the specific rules, perhaps it's best to avoid them. Perhaps reverting for what you know to not be policy-based reasoning was not the best course of action. We've not had dealings before (I don't think), but I know of you and I know you to be a good editor- acting directly against policy simply because you don't like the policy is rarely going to be a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're right - it wasn't a thought-out revert, just a reaction to what in a common-sense world seemed very wrong. I wasn't thinking about policy at that moment, I was reacting to the idea that an image that seems obvious to me to be an enhancement of an article - and has been in the article providing what I think is an important function for a year (although I did not add it) - would be removed because it "added nothing". It's actually not true that I am not interested in why our NFCC policy is the way it is - I am always interested in the underpinnings of a policy, especially when it seems wrong to me - and indeed I do almost always avoid the argument and stay out of matters related to photos here. In fact if you look upstream on this page and in the archives I am sure you'll see me refer numerous times to the fact that I stay away from photo policy - I find it difficult to leave logic at the door when applying policy, so I stay away from an area I know may call for it. This time my sense of the right took precedence over my usual course of action - to stay out of photo disputes - because it just seemed so wrong. I'm not really an IAR type of editor, so that's not what it was - more likely it was having spent too much time yesterday slogging through Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and trying to bring that one back to Earth, so my usual restraint in avoiding this somewhat arcane policy area suffered a hit. In any case, as I said above I'm certainly not going to fight this one, because I don't doubt that you have policy support - but I did feel the need to object, if perhaps not in the best way. Nice to meet you, anyway, if not under the best circumstances - I suspect I'll call upon you in the future when I have photo policy questions....Cheers :) Tvoz/talk 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with the logic/NFCC dichotomy, I just think that you have to remember that, as in any area, words can sometimes take on slightly new meanings. So, yes, from the outside looking in, claiming that the book cover "added nothing" may seem strange, even self-evidently wrong. I guess something to remember is that, from a policy perspective, images are either free or non-free, with no middle ground- so while many images may seem perfectly innocuous, from a policy perspective, they have to be treated fairly heavy-handedly, and, yes, somewhat more heavy handedly than they would be treated by some other publications. I can certainly appreciate what you say about articles like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories- I've had dealings with other editors who are on the front lines of the "good fight" with some of the worst kinds of editors, and I can appreciate that it's very easy to see people removing images for some (overly?) legalistic in a similar light. I've had images I've uploaded deleted too, so I know how it feels. Nice to chat with you- you're more than welcome to contact me with queries. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're right - it wasn't a thought-out revert, just a reaction to what in a common-sense world seemed very wrong. I wasn't thinking about policy at that moment, I was reacting to the idea that an image that seems obvious to me to be an enhancement of an article - and has been in the article providing what I think is an important function for a year (although I did not add it) - would be removed because it "added nothing". It's actually not true that I am not interested in why our NFCC policy is the way it is - I am always interested in the underpinnings of a policy, especially when it seems wrong to me - and indeed I do almost always avoid the argument and stay out of matters related to photos here. In fact if you look upstream on this page and in the archives I am sure you'll see me refer numerous times to the fact that I stay away from photo policy - I find it difficult to leave logic at the door when applying policy, so I stay away from an area I know may call for it. This time my sense of the right took precedence over my usual course of action - to stay out of photo disputes - because it just seemed so wrong. I'm not really an IAR type of editor, so that's not what it was - more likely it was having spent too much time yesterday slogging through Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and trying to bring that one back to Earth, so my usual restraint in avoiding this somewhat arcane policy area suffered a hit. In any case, as I said above I'm certainly not going to fight this one, because I don't doubt that you have policy support - but I did feel the need to object, if perhaps not in the best way. Nice to meet you, anyway, if not under the best circumstances - I suspect I'll call upon you in the future when I have photo policy questions....Cheers :) Tvoz/talk 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Of course I'm familiar with these criteria, but I don't agree with them"- Ok, that's fine, you don't have to agree with them. Equally, there are guidelines I think are stupid, but, while I'm here, I'm going to respect them, as that's how this project works. IAR is fundamental, but that does not mean we should ignore policies we don't like, it's there to help us in unforseen circumstances. If it's something I very strongly disagree with, I'll do my best to change it; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I could offer you a defence of our NFCC, but I doubt you're interested- however, what I will say is this: If you are aware of the fact you disagree so strongly with the specific rules, perhaps it's best to avoid them. Perhaps reverting for what you know to not be policy-based reasoning was not the best course of action. We've not had dealings before (I don't think), but I know of you and I know you to be a good editor- acting directly against policy simply because you don't like the policy is rarely going to be a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
RE: Middleton
Is it really? On the Mariah Carey article, it does not say that. Nor does it say in the Victoria Beckham, Sarah Palin, or the Katie Holmes articles. The first two are GA, too. Estheroliver (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh come on, you really want to play want dueling articles? Diana, Princess of Wales, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michelle Obama, and many, many more. By the way, Katie Holmes and Sarah Palin are not great examples for your position -they both identify their siblings as "She is the youngest in a family of five children (four daughters, one son)", and "She is the youngest in a family of five children (four daughters, one son)" a couple of lines above their names, which is arguably more awkward than even the slightly awkward sibling wording we had for Catherine which I've changed anyway. The point is that identifying a sister as a sister is totally common, and the problem with the sentence, if there was a problem, was including the word "siblings" - which was there because the opener of the paragraph said she is the eldest of three, and it seemed more appropriate to acknowledge that we had already mentioned that there were siblings when actually identifying them by name. In any case, I think it is fine now. In my long experience here I've found it's not a good idea to make assumptions like "Anybody who speaks even a beginner level of English would know...". You'd be surprised. Cheers. Tvoz/talk 08:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Katie Holmes is the youngest of five children. Palin is the third of four children, so she is not the youngest.
- To be honest, I would not be surprised because I speak English as a second language myself. On the Yao Ming article, I had once linked that he was an only child; one of the more experienced admins had said, "Look, per MoS, this is considered overlinking. Anybody who speaks English knows what an only child is." I guess one of the other ESLers took the term too literally and removed it, saying he was not a child anymore. Of course, it was restored because that's just how the term is used. It's the same deal here. ("If there is any trace of that, they need to be removed as well. Her siblings birthdates/years are not notable.") Estheroliver (talk)
- My 4AM wedding-fatigue cut and paste error on Palin - quote is "She is the third of four children (three daughters, one son)" a line above naming the names. Point still the same as above - for both of them the gender of the siblings is listed, if in its own fairly awkward way, not leaving the names to be the determinants. You really can't go by the names anyway - Stanley Ann Dunham and Evelyn Waugh come quickly to mind, and there are probably better examples. Anyway.... although I disagreed with your edit, you did highlight that there was some awkwardness in that sentence, so the article is improved. Tvoz/talk 19:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Article
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lhb1239 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
DSK : Split need
Tvoz, please consider that I modified my split proposal from an new article on the 'trial' (not yet sure), to a new article on the case/sex scandal (wich already exist). Also, consider a change in your vote. Having a new article, we will avoid conflict with some users willing to keep the section's size small. Yug (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
JBKO's Name in Infobox
Hi Tvoz, could you provide some insight on the discussion page of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis regarding this issue? I don't want to get into an editing war with the other editor, so I thought I'd seek another educated opinion. Thanks! FrostySnows (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you provide a third opinion about Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC: undocumented immigrant or illegal immigrant. (See User talk:Off2riorob#Jose Antonio Vargas.)
Instead of an RfC, would a normal talk page discussion be better to settle the dispute over the article's wording and end the edit warring? Cunard (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I think a regular discussion would have been enough as a starter, especially since there was already a discussion going on at the BLP Noticeboard - but no real problem going with the RfC. I've commented. Tvoz/talk 04:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just saw your exchange with Off2riorob, and I have to say I agree with him that this was not necessary, and also wonder why you're escalating this. I had not seen your attempt at closing the noticeboard discussion - not the way we do it. Tvoz/talk 04:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- My closure of the BLPN thread was to direct users to the talk page. I've seen slow-moving edit wars that have lasted for months because no consensus had been reached on the article's content (e.g. List of YouTube personalities). I initiated an RfC to hopefully put the issue to rest as I've seen users revert war over the "illegal" and "undocumented" terminology. Because of the objections over an RfC, I've converted the RfC into a normal talk page discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
freshacconci talktalk 18:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)