User talk:Bellwether BC/Other talk archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other talk archive 1

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Jimbo Wales encourages Wikipedians who think the same thing to join him in this quiet small way to say to the world: Wikipedians stand with the right of individuals everywhere to report on the facts of the world in peace.

China blogger beaten to death by government officials

Contents 1 Teacher accounts 2 "fascillitator"?! 3 From Victuallers 4 Image copyright problem with Image:Elise Primavera at a book signing.jpg 5 References 6 I really *will* do it tomorrow night 7 Thank you! 8 WP:FILMS Welcome 9 Possible project 10 References for Elise Primavera 11 Thanks... 12 Obama 13 Ricxster 14 Image:AudacityofHope.jpg 15 Your message 16 Thanks 17 DYK 18 dyk 19 IAR 20 Comment on DYK nomination 21 FAR 22 Watching FAR 23 From Victuallers, regarding Victoriatown 24 Hi 25 Thanks for fair use resolutions 26 DYK! 27 Book image 28 Think of resolution 29 Collage - still copyvio 30 How terrible! 31 Orson Scott Card Views on sex 32 Victoriatown 33 Hi there 34 WP:AN 35 Fowler&fowler 36 Giuliani 37 Clinton, McCain, Obama & Romney 38 WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter 39 Your request 40 BRC 41 I moved your comment 42 Clinton and Obama 43 User:Snowball8000 appears to be sock of User:Wfgh66 44 Let's agree! 45 OSC Talk 46 Diffs, as promised here 47 Happy Valentine's Day! 48 Is it Bushmills time? 49 James Blunt 50 Thanks again for fair use resolutions 51 WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

[edit] Teacher accounts

What an excellent idea!

I wish more pedagogues would consider a similar idea as it might go some way to reducing the amount of school based vandalism we get... Alice^✉ 03:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "fascillitator"?!

Unless it's meant to imply some fascistic tendencies, you might want to change this to facilitator (grin)? Alice^✉ 03:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I checked on word, and I think it can be spelled either way, but I changed it anyway. I don't want to give anyone the impression that I'm Mussolini or something. Bellwether BC (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Victuallers

hi - thanks for feedback on the pic. Hopefully your article might create a contribution. I get about 25% success from just asking nicely on Flickr. Oh and if you find out how to create students accounts then tell me - have you tried asking at the Wikiversity? Victuallers (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Try here for wikiversity Victuallers (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Elise Primavera at a book signing.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Elise Primavera at a book signing.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. Bellwether BC 06:03, 31 December 2007

[edit] References

Sorry I have failed to take care of this, I will do my best tonight. Was trying to get my references into the article I'm rebuilding last night. Feel free to give it a copy edit if you're in the mood - I have considerably expanded the "Military career" section, as it is inevitably discussed in almost every single interview Blunt gives. Now...where did I put it...oh yeah, User:Risker/blunt. So far I have edited the early life, military career, early career, and a chunk of the Back to Bedlam section. Any thoughts about the television appearances section? It doesn't include anything outside of the US, even though his bigger breaks came in the UK and Europe. If you see anywhere that I should put more references (I've flagged some places myself), please feel free to point them out. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I really *will* do it tomorrow night

Sincere apologies for not having done those references today. I have finally finished up my draft revision of the Blunt article - please feel free to copy edit[1] - but real life (in the form of large amounts of snow and a sick family, my 100.2 fever was the lowest of the lot) interfered with my getting to the Primavera page today. Having said that, a lot of my work tonight/this morning was on referencing the Blunt stuff, so I think I know just about every error that can be made in formatting references. I am assuming that inline cites will be fine? I'll be aiming for Thursday morning completion. Risker (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

It would have been sad to see those images go. Hopefully, such name changes will be made to all or nearly all list-articles in future! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Welcome

[edit] Possible project

I am a former middle school teacher who thought it might be a good idea to provide students the opportunity to get articles on Wikipedia about young adult novels. Specifically, the novels of M. E. Kerr. I found you because I watch Harper Lee (and have added 95% of the content to To Kill a Mockingbird). M. E. Kerr is an article I have worked on for her adult novels (not those kinds of novels), but her most prolific writing has been in the form of young adult novels, which I have not read. It would take me a very long time to create articles for her most popular and/or awarded ones. I'm willing to assist your students. Please let me know. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References for Elise Primavera

Well, I promised you'd have them before Monday, and they are now done according to inline citation format. I have one concern though - the Miriam Drennan quote (Ref #8) is probably too long; it's almost 30% of the original article, whereas my understanding is that direct quotes should be 10% at most for copyright reasons. You might want to identify what facts are most important and use ellipses between them to reduce the verbiage, or alternately write more of the info from the quote right into the article. I will leave it to you to decide. Risker (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for clearing the vandalism off my user page. I have been having a little tug of war with vandals on Swedish emigration to the United States, Bishonen's feature article that was on the Main Page yesterday, and it seems they started rampaging about. Risker (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obama

OK, amigo, Then please respond to these points--In describing an American family as white, black, Asian or Latino, some degree of detail and insight are added. It seems to me that knowing an American family is white gives some insight into that family, as opposed to a black or African-American family might. What was gained by your deletion of the word "white" before "American middle class family." It seems to me it detracts from clarity rather than adds to it. Please set out your rationale. Rosspz (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Rosspz.

[edit] Ricxster

Why is it that when i changed barack from leading candidate to just a candidate - you reverted the edit, but when equality is given to clinton - you take out "leading" from her. Make up your mind if leading is to be used in both or none for i will keep on changing it. Wikipedia should not become a propaganda ground. If you hate clinton, thats fine - just apply equality in facts. (i.e. the fact that they are BOTH leading candidates)-- by User:Ricxster
[move from archives by Bellwether ^B_C]

• I made it clear at the Clinton talkpage that the reversion was a mistake. I thought I was adding it back in after you had previously removed it. You had removed it, then went to Obama's page and claimed that since Clinton's page didn't have "leading" Obama's shouldn't either. That's specious. Now that both pages read "leading", the issue is resolved. Bellwether ^B_C 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AudacityofHope.jpg

I've moved your comment at Image:AudacityofHope.jpg to the talk page, and revised the previous rationale to include your point about critical commentary. I think this rationale works, but please have a look and doublecheck me. If you're satisfied, so am I. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't, really - but I presumed that you had intended to post your comment on the talk page, which is why I moved it. I then replaced it with the template, which I use as a checklist to make sure I don't forget anything. The comment's signature was what made me think that it was a talk page comment - but, as I look, the signature was the original editor's, not yours. That's my bad. I think the templates make everything clearer, specifically since there have been so many questions about this image - but we can do it either way. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was originally removed by User:Ilse@, and I attempted to correct her concern (over no FUR for Barack Obama. See also User talk:Ilse@#Barack Obama. I couldn't get a version she was satisfied with, so I pre-emptively pulled the image. But, especially since there had been discussion some months ago, I think the current rationale is good. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's election season. I've been watching Obama's page, which is why I caught the image being removed the first time around. Not a problem. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Replied on the talk page of the article. Did you accidentally leave the "inuse" template on? I hope you aren't still up editing... Risker (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for keeping your eye on the James Blunt page while I'm on the road (at a pound per 10 mins, I won't be online much!) Things seem relatively stable. *searches desperately for tilde on UK keyboard* Risker (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

I did remove it. It's on the main page! Archtransit (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dyk

On 14 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Capitol Offense (band), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IAR

A potentially useful discussion...If WP were only a few editors or a few hundred, there doesn't need to be any rules. Just IAR and discussion. Those few editors would know the thought behind BLP and there would be no need for a BLP policy.

As WP gets bigger, BLP needs to be written.

As it gets even bigger, should be have more policies? I think it should as long as the policies are sound.

How do communities in the real world live? IAR is not used much. Break a rule, go to prison. How about speeding? "But I had to mop the toilet spill and then I was late to school/work and that grandmother in front of me was driving too slowly". No, the rules are "no speeding unless you have a siren. No sirens unless you are the police or fire department."

I am even willing to help write policy drafts. Archtransit (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with rule creep is that, once your body of rules gets big enough, it gets so unwieldy that your average person can no longer understand it. So we get people whose life's work it is to interpret and explain them -- judges and lawyers. Wikipedia, by and large, doesn't have these (with the notable exception of ArbCom, which, while a great boon to the project, should only be used sparingly for obvious reasons).

Also, many laws in the legal world have the object of protecting persons and their property. Traffic laws are important because a can can be a lethal weapon if the driver is not careful. Wikipedia has much lower stakes. If an editor makes a mistake ... someone comes along and fixes it, no harm done. (You will notice that the Wikipedia policies which do have significant "real-world" stakes -- such as WP:BLP -- do have provisions for their rigorous and unequivocal enforcement.)

At Wikipedia we have the luxury of being able to experiment with rules and their applications through trial and error and of being able to use common sense when it suits the situation better than the rules. These are luxuries that legal structures do not have. But they are luxuries that arguably make the project much better -- why not take them? - Revolving Bugbear 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments make sense. It's a balance between too much and too few. One idea might be added to policy. An admin is instructed not to unblock himself/herself. Looking at WP:LOP, it's not there. That could be a policy and possibly non-controversial addition. These are the type of changes that I'm interested in discussing. First the logical, non-controversial policies then the logical, possibly controversial policies. Archtransit (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• And WP:IAR is often misused by those who are simply trying to force their POV and/or interpretation of things onto an article/policy page. This is a problem with those editors, not that policy, wouldn't you agree? -- Bellwether ^B_C 18:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a IFR, Ignore fewer rules? I've heard of IAR regarding templates. What are some other valid IAR? Archtransit (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, no, NO! IAR is core, and integral to the work of the project. It's the IAR-abusers that need dealt with, not the policy. -- Bellwether ^B_C 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Examples: we have rules regarding reliable sources for non-living people and other subjects. Sometimes, it's very difficult to find completely reliable sources. In the case that there is an article that a user truly feels needs to be written, I contend that writing the article sans truly reliable sources is an appropriate application. There are others too innumerable to name, but that one pops directly to mind. -- Bellwether ^B_C 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My #1 argument against regulation creep and in favor of IAR: Have you ever played Crossbows and Catapults? It's a game where you line up toy siege weapons and sling little discs at your opponent's fortress.

Replace the siege weapons with Wikipedians. Replace the little discs with wikilinks to polices, guidelines, and essays. Congratulations! You've invented WP:AfD! - Revolving Bugbear 18:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• True, true. I must say, though, I'm a bit of a deletionist. There's a lot of crap on the project right now, and AfD does serve that purpose. Personally, I'd like to see the CSD policy loosened up. Anything that's worth writing an article about is worth writing well, and at least providing one ref to show that the subject of the article is in some way noteable. I'm of the opinion that lots of things are noteable, but that there's an even greater amount of things (and people) that are not noteable, and thus do not need to have an article written about them/it. -- Bellwether ^B_C 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you re: refs. I'm a bit of a fence-sitter myself on the topic of inclusion/deletion -- I used to consider myself rather inclusionist, but I guess I've gotten more "conservative" over my time here. Point is, there seem to be a slew of regulations (mostly guidelines) which appear to have been written purely for use in AfD. If people did a little more thinking about and explaining their ideas, a whole bunch of them could fall by the wayside. - Revolving Bugbear 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• (undent) I definitely agree about instruction creep regarding AfD. I don't know how you get away from that, though, since AfD is a necessary evil for those articles that don't fall under the relatively narrow parameters of CSD. There has to be some criteria by which to judge whether an article deserves to be deleted, don't you think? Notability, for one, serves that purpose in my view. -- Bellwether ^B_C 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about the need for some criteria. Notability in theory serves that purpose. But even notability has become a nightmare of proscribed guidelines (WP:PORNBIO, anyone?). Unfortunately, the "fix" for the problem would be for people to use a little more common sense (and expend a little more effort than it takes to type "*'''Delete''' nn bio ~~~~") in discussions. Beyond that, I'm as devoid of a solution as the next guy. - Revolving Bugbear 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on DYK nomination

Hi Bellwether. I can understand your frustration when you saw what appeared to be a comment by me with regards to your nominated article supposedly lacking in in-text citations.

However, I have never made any such statement with regards to your article. None at all. The comment you reacted to was directed at this nomination: "...that William Melmoth's 1711 work The Great Importance of a Religious Life Consider'd went through thirty editions and sold over 420,000 copies by the end of the century? (self-made) Geogre (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)" that was located right below you.

After that nomination led to a DYK it disappeared from the "Template talk:Did you know", but for some reason my comment did not. Due to what was probably a malfunction in the system the comment remained and seemed aimed at your nomination, which it never was. I see that your nomination still went through fine and hope you did not have much trouble due to this event, even though it never, at any point, was due to any mistake of mine. The article I left the comment about was not yours and did not include in-text citations. System failure was behind this one. Have a good day and keep up the good work. Manxruler (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Responded on my talk page. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

• I apologize for that last part, and I struck it out. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Watching FAR

Hi Bellwether. There's a few people who regularly comment at FAR, although they don't drop into every one; the more the better. It's not so much a watchlist thing, as a mental note to stop by the page every five or six days. Look at the top to see if there's anything new you might help with. Look at the bottom in FARC to see if there's anything you can say keep or remove regarding. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of the United States has left me quite undecided. It's been open far too long, but I just need one or two other people to offer a thoughtful comment on a 50-50 review.

I am wary both of snap removals and snap keeps. The more specific the comment is, with reference to WP:WIAFA and Wiki policies, the better. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Victuallers, regarding Victoriatown

Hi Bellwether and the club (cool name!). I'd be pleased to help. They have just changed the requirements to 2000 characters of text.... quick visual estimate says ... maybe(*) ... but I can help too and will nominate it within 24 hours. What I think is missing is a geotag ... if you have never done this before then you need to look at other settlements and copy how they do it. You can find the geotag position by finding it say on Google maps or Wikimapia and looking at the url. Again any problems then I'll help. This should be fun and thanks for asking Victuallers (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(*) Cut and paste the text (only! not refs or lists etc) into "word" to get a character count... I'll do it too. Victuallers (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

You might want to read WP:MOS#Images: "Upright" is added to portrait-format images, which will result in default image width of 140px. It may vary proportionately by user preferences. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need FUR for valid CC images. Please see Image:Victoriatown Map.jpg and follow my steps. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, the above example wasn't a good one, since it turned out to be a copyvio from Google Maps. Not your fault or mine, but the Flickr user who tagged it with CC needs to learn more about copyrights. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• It looks to me like a collage, where the Flickr user combined his own work with a map image. Is that a copyvio? -- Bellwether ^B_C 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fair use resolutions

Thanks Bellwether for doing some of the image fair use resolutions that came up on my talk page! But no need, I'm used to doing these, I added a zillion album and tour images back in the day before WP became fanatical about fair use rationales, so these pop up at me all the time ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

On 21 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Victoriatown, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Majorly (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Again great job on the article! I was pleased to nominate a fact from it! - Ohmpandya ^{We need to talk... ♦ contribs} 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book image

Why? Well the article looked image heavy and the image is about the book not the village. The book image is rightly on the book article. The text about the book is five, but including the pic makes us look like the books PR agents ... I think ... will you have some time? The bit about the bus driver seems odd for an emcyclopedia Victuallers (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Think of resolution

You are an education and also commemorate Wei Wenhua on your talk page. As an educator, you probably seek resolution when disputes arise between students. Sometimes the resolution is a novel solution. I am trying to seek that novel solution (see ANI).

You also commemorate Mr. Wei. He was killed while trying to express an opinion. My proposals are meant to be an expression of several people's opinions on ANI (see quotes that I mention). I have never expressed support or an opinion for the blocked user.

How can we bridge the gap between everyone's opinions? I made an attempt on ANI with my novel 98% block. Archtransit (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collage - still copyvio

You cannot use google maps even if it is in a collage. The base image is still under copyright. You cannot mix two copyrighted images and claim it as free-use. I have deleted the image from wikipedia and it will soon be deleted from commons. That is why I blanked it, as it will soon turn into a redlink. Woody (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No idea, I only know what isn't allowed, and copyrighted images are one of those. Self-made maps are ok, i.e creating a map yourself, using US-Government aerial views. You might want to ask around at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps for help on how to create one. Woody (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How terrible!

I notice you have a memorial for that man who got beaten to death in China. It's very sad. I can't help but think "Those awful bastards!". But I take it you also support freedom of speech? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure what your point is, but yeah. -- Bellwether ^B_C 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here, is my point. I even say so on my userpage. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orson Scott Card Views on sex

Just to let you know I'm proposing restoring this section - see my reasoning and proposed wording for the section on the talk page. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Zeborah (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victoriatown

Saw your comment on Raul's talk page. I would recommend nominating Victoriatown for Good Article status first. You can do this by following the instructions at WP:GAC. Before you do however, I would expand the WP:LEAD of the article a little. Good Article's can generally be less comprehensive then FAs; so I would recommend you start there. - Shudde ^talk 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I would strongly recommend GA. If you get a good reviewer (most of them are) then you will get some helpful feedback, and it will definitely help improve the article. If you get burn't there let me know—cause that isn't supposed to happen. - Shudde ^talk 06:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

I'd be very pleased to take a look at those articles! Had a lovely holiday, and only popped into here a few times to take a look at non-project page things (not that much happened while I was away). Since my return, I've put some time in doing new page patrolling to remind myself of what we are really here for. I see you're considering GA for Victoriatown, so will make that my first priority. I will watch that process with great interest, if all goes well I will be in a position to pilot the Blunt article through GA review in a couple of weeks once I clear off my desk at work. (I already know I had over 1200 new emails and more than six inches of "real" mail on the desk as of Wednesday morning. I really didn't need to know that.) Risker (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will indeed look at Sorta tomorrow. As it turns out, I will be in Montreal near the end of February and will see if I can get my hands on more info about Victoriatown while there. On doing some research, I see Montreal is considering *another* Expo - hard to believe, they have just finished paying for Expo 67. I can still remember being in the Bell pavillion then and watching the surround-film that was the predecessor of IMAX - amazing. Risker (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

I assume you've seen User:Smith Jones before. He is truly unique (and I know "unique" shouldn't be qualified); but he's good to have around. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise he means well, but trying to hammer in a nail with a blancmange is not highly recommended. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fowler&fowler

I thought we weren't replying to Fowler&fowler.[2] Not sure what's gotten a bee in his bonnet, but it's best if we stop feeding him. If he has a point to what he's saying, I'm sure it'll show up in the new section he plans to create on the talk page. If it's more of the same that he's already included in the current section, then ignore it and in 10 days the auto-archiver will take it off the talk page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giuliani

I noticed your revert on that page. [3] I have it on my watchlist since a request on RFPP was made. It is indeed announced that Giuliani may drop out tomorrow, and adding that with a source is probably the best way to prevent people adding that he has already dropped out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Check the cover of any other the big newspaper websites and you're likely to see it at the top. Fox news, perhaps unsurprisingly, has the most stridently worded headline. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton, McCain, Obama & Romney

All these four candidates have a realistic chance at their respective party's presidential nominatons. However, we should wait until at least after Feb 5, before we add leading to any of their articles. I'll will go out on a limb an predict this - Gravel won't get the Dem nominaton; Huckabee and Paul won't get the Republican nomination. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that we wait until after February 5th. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted in my 'edit summaries', I've no intentions of reverting again. You're free of course to re-add 'leading', though I hope you'll reconsider. I was just figured, 5 more days wouldn't hurt. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the best excuse I could come up with. Feel free to do as you wish. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your request

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archtransit Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BRC

You've been invited. GlassCobra 07:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

- TRANSMISSION ENDS -

[edit] I moved your comment

Its now at [[4]]. Guy is keeping all his WP talk stuff on a subpage at the moment. I hope you don't mind. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton and Obama

Hello Bellwether, do ya think ya could've used another word? Say 'stubborn' instead of 'obtuse'? Anyways, (no hard feelings) a leading is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told Tvoz, you're both straightshooters who stick to your guns. You both have my respect. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, well - thanks. Tvoz |talk 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard not to think you're doing it on purpose, when it seems you just refuse to see the difference between "a leading" and "the leading." Bellwether ^B_C 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

'Tis alright now, I see the differance. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Snowball8000 appears to be sock of User:Wfgh66

LOL! --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's agree!

The RFC page says

Disputes should be archived under any of the following circumstances:
1. If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.
2. The parties to the dispute agree.
3. The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.

We have no option to keep the RFC open indefinitely. Eventually, it must go to the archives, possibly after 30 days (March 2008).

I think 3 is potentially confrontational and may not achieve your goals in the best way.

I think 1 is a potential conclusion. It requires that you do nothing.

I think 2 is a nice and friendly way to conclude the RFC. Let's agree! A simple, non-confrontational agreement could be "After discussion, the 2 certifiers and Archtransit have agreed to end the RFC". The Ryan Postlethwaite Accords (like Oslo Accords?) or Ryan Agreement can be the framework so that I can declare peace in our time. Archtransit (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll check the RFC page. People don't like it if one continually adds comments so I'll wait a while before adding a comment to address your question. Archtransit (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OSC Talk

Let's agree that:

1. You ought not to have brought up your personal views on what is or is not homophobia, nor tried to argue that in your view someone who only wants LGBT people legally harassed and discriminated against, not subjected to violent illegal attacks, is not homophobic. None of that is relevant to an outline of Orson Scott Card's views and the public controversy reacting to them.

2. Redspruce ought not to have called you a homophobe, and having done so, ought to have apologized: it's my firm contention that "non-apology apologies" only make matters worse, and as you justly noted, his "non-apology" wasn't even a "sorry if it matters": it was an apology to Wikipedia for behaving badly, not to you.

I want to propose an *informal* 24-hour moratorium on the Talk page for the three of us, and no further edits to the OSC page or the BLP page in the mean time.

I think you might bear in mind, in future, that when you feel personally hurt at being called a homophobe, the LGBT people reading your view that it's not homophobic to pass laws making it illegal for us to publicly exist, may also feel a degree of personal hurt that you consider it normal and acceptable to have us legally discriminated against. I try not to, frankly, because while it is hurtful to be reminded that so many Americans consider me and others like me less than human, I'm also aware that most such people never consider this as applying to actual human beings and fellow wiki editors. I find Orson Scott Card's views very personally hurtful, as I was and am a fan of his writing: I have attempted not to bring that personal pain into the wiki-edit of his biography. I would appreciate it if you could refrain from bringing your personal pain at being regarded as homophobic for the personal views which you expressed into the Talk page. Yonmei (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that RedSpruce ought to apologize.

I disagree that it's "inflammatory" to note that many people consider that Orson Scott Card's views are homophobic. They do so consider them, and "homophobic" or "anti-gay" is the term used to describe such views. If you disagree with that terminology, you need to take your disagreement to the homophobia page.

I really think that all three of us ought just to quit arguing about it for 24 hours. Yonmei 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to be further involved in any personal infights between you and RedSpruce. Yonmei (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the discussion got so heated. But I simply cannot believe that anyone who has read the bigoted filth from OSC that's quoted in the article and still says "I have no opinion on whether his views are 'homophobic.'", can only be homophobic himself, even if you don't realize it. The conclusion is simply inescapable for me, and I cannot escape it. For me to apologize to you directly would have been a lie, because I'm not sorry for calling you what you are. It's nice that you made some efforts to reduce the intolerance toward gays in the world. Perhaps in the fullness of time you'll see that you still have some work to do on reducing that intolerance in yourself. RedSpruce (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've explained very directly my views, now that you've made it about them. For me, it was only ever about what did or did not belong in the article. And, I'm clearly not homophobic, no matter how much you call me that. After reading my explanations of who I am, and how I approach the issue of homosexuality in my real life, what portion of who I actually am (not who you THOUGHT I was, based upon our content disagreement) leads you to still insist that I'm some kind of latent homophobe? Is it that I explicitly teach my students about the maltreatment of gays throughout history, even at personal risk to my career, being a teacher in a small southern community? Is that how a "homophobe" behaves? You've made a content dispute very personal, and it's completely unacceptable. That you maintain that you're right about your opinion of me is hurtful in the extreme, and ironic, considering the issue upon which we were disagreeing. Bellwether ^B_C 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, what happened, in order:

RedSpruce had added a list of references to the article on OSC, citations confirming that people do regard the opinions expressed by OSC as homophobic.

Bellwether removed these references and asserted that only people who actually advocate violence against LGBT people ought to be called homophobic: people who merely express the opinion that LGBT people ought to be legally discriminated against ought not.

Discussion ensued, into which Bellwether keeps introducing their own personal opinions of what is and isn't homophobia.

RedSpruce calls Bellwether a homophobe: this is unquestionably a personal attack, if inspired by Bellwether's own unjustifiable intrusion of personal opinion into a biographical discussion.

I invite RedSpruce to apologize.

Unfortunately, RedSpruce does not apologize, and further inflames the situation by making a "non apology apology".

Bellwether complains that their feelings are hurt by being called a homophobe.

I try to explain to Bellwether why the discussion got heated, and propose an informal 24-hour moratorium.

I'm really not interested in getting involved in any further personal infighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonmei (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks, SineBot! and apologies - I just realised I hadn't signed it...Yonmei (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diffs, as promised here

My main objective is to see if you are willing to just let this all go. Seriously. Every time Arch types something, you object. You've reverted him, responded to everything he said. Just let it play out, my friend. The sky is not falling, the world is not ending. Anyway, the diffs as promised: your first use of "conveniently", your second use of "conveniently", and finally, my response.

Anyway, those are the diffs. We are actually on the same side here, Bellwether. We both seem to think that Arch needs help to be an effective admin sometime in the future. Every time he opens his mouth keyboard, though, it seems that you are the first to jump down his throat. Relax. The world isn't ending. Your userpage says you are involved in a middle school. I used to be a 6th grade teacher. The comments and objections that you've raised thus far seem to be coming from a middle schooler instead of a middle school teacher. Chill out dude! Life's too short. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Now that's an insult, and it's noted. Where have I behaved in any way that could be categorized as "coming from a middle schooler." Using the word "conveniently" with regards to AT's selective archival of those threads critical of him is not incivil, it's calling it like I see it. If those are your only diffs, the case for my "incivility" or "middle school" behavior is very thin indeed. And, for the record, I was patient with him in the initial stages, trying to explain to him how disruptive CltFn was. He didn't want to hear it. After repeated instances of tools misuse, and equally futile attempts at reasoning, as well as his selective talkpage archiving, I have given up on him. This is not "incivil" or "jumping down his throat", it's simply the natural course of events. I stand by every word I've typed during this RfC, and in the events leading up to it. And I do not appreciate having my behavior categorized as incivil and middle school-like. Bellwether ^B_C 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about my comments regarding you as a "middle schooler" and I've struck them as inappropriate. My frustration with the RfC process is with the process, not you. The answers you gave of I have stopped and I have not stopped "beating my wife", while I understand what you were trying to communicate, struck me as an immature response with no foreseeable result other than a stirred drhama pot. I'm glad you've struck them out. I remembered your name from Arch's talkpage regarding his archiving habits (I've seen much worse habits than that) and then the multiple posts at the RfC from you and I thought it would just be better to move along. Better for you I mean. I wasn't meaning to allude in the RfC that there were more diffs than that. I simply said that you've claimed to be civil, and you were challenged once before. Once before, hence few diffs. Everyone reading the RfC will be able to draw conclusions themselves, and right now my conclusiion is that Arch's RfC is bizarre. It is uncharacterisitc of his editing style and certainly nonstandard in format and form. But I just don't feel that adding a one liner to everything was helpful, or replying to every comment made by Arch was helpful. Anyway, that was my feeling at the time. I've unwatchlisted the RfC, I've seen what I needed to see and said what I needed to say. I will however revisit my post as soon as I hit *save* here to clarify my sentiments that produced this talkthread, and I will strike my comments in the interests of dedramafication. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Valentine's Day!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it Bushmills time?

Okay, I forget your tipple of choice... Do feel free to stop by, I'll be online all night trying my best to respond to the GA review recommendations on James Blunt. Risker (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Blunt

Taking you up on your offer, I have sent you an email (too many links to put here without being confusing). Thanks much - please let me know if you won't be able to help. Best, Risker (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Got your message...no problems, will take care of it. Hope all goes well. Risker (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Per your request: quoting from my external message...

Were you serious about helping out? If so...I have a specific paragraph that needs to be written, about the critical response to JB's second album.

It should start out something to the effect of "Unlike Blunt's first album, music critics from every major music publication weighed in on All the Lost Souls." (I have made the point that few critics even bothered with the first album when it was released.)

An excellent place to find these reviews is here: http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/bluntjames/allthelostsouls Please include Billboard, Q, Rolling Stone, LA Times....discuss how the critical response ranged widely from negative to very positive... just stick the links into the paragraph and I will format the refs after the fact.

Thanks! Risker (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That reads really well, and I cannot thank you enough for your help! If you can copy it over to the article directly, that would be absolutely perfect - probably as the second para of the Souls section. I'm sort of on and off line right now, we're having weather and thus a wonky internet connection...and I want to ensure the edit is properly attributed to you. Risker (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And we have achieved Good Article status! Thanks so much for your help - make sure you note your contribution to bringing this article up to snuff.

--Risker (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again for fair use resolutions

Thanks again for resolving some of my fair use things. I took a few days off 'cause I had gotten upset over some stuff, but that bot never quits! And I see you posted some complaints about it to WP:ANI. Those "#10c" backlink flaggings are indeed especially ridiculous. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)