User talk:Bfigura/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Thank you and clarification
Hi there! Thank you so much for offering your opinion and for providing some recommendations on that matter I reported at WQA. Regarding what you wrote on the editor's talk page User_talk:TheOzz I want to clarify something in case it affects what you would have said to him: the person he implied is a criminal is not a wikipedia editor. I don't know if the guidelines or your recommendations would apply differently in that case? In any case, I really appreciate your taking time to offer a third party view and the recommendations you made. Taketime (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Taketime. Well, either way is a violation of policy. One violates WP:HARASS and one violates WP:BLP. BLP is one of the core (ie, non-negotiable) principles governing Wikipedia, so violation of that is a Bad Thing. If it happens again, let me know, or put up a short neutral post on ANI. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bfigura,
I wanted to update you. User:TheOzz took your advice and removed the personal name of the wikipedia editor he had "outed" (except from the edit summary where he also mentioned her name--I know she'll have to get some help from "Oversight" if she wants that scrubbed.)
I'm thankful he responded to your suggestion, however from looking at how he handled the edits, it seems as though he did not grasp the extent to which he is engaging in ad hominem attacks, personal attack, dragging in off-wiki interactions, baiting, taunting, and so on. Also he followed -- perhaps -- the letter of the instruction you gave him not to imply someone is a criminal, but did not follow the spirit of that advice. He rewrote that part a little bit and then added an inline link to a page that makes the criminal claim.
Here's the diff: [1] Do you feel he needs to be talked to again? What would you advise? Taketime (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied on the thread over at WP:WQA. (If memory serves, that covered this instance) --Bfigura (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Priory of Sion Good Article Review
Hello Bfigura. I've left comments for you on the Talk:Priory of Sion page. --Loremaster (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've replied on the talk page. (And passed the article per WP:GAN). Nice work, --Bfigura (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Image:Posthuman Future.jpg
Hello Bfigura. Through extensive collaboration and compromise, I succeeded in raising the quality of the Transhumanism article enough to get Featured Article status. However, I've been informed that some fanatical transhumanists, who want to use the article as promotion tool for their ideology and subculture, are trying or will try to edit it to push their POV. The first thing they want to do is delete the Posthuman Future image in order to replace with an image that makes transhumanism look "cool". Now that you are aware of the context, I was wondering if you could help find a proper fair use rationale for that image if there is one since I haven't had the time to fully master Wikipedia guidelines regarding uploaded images. --Loremaster (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Loremaster. I'm not the greatest authority on our NFCC policies, but here's my thoughts: using non-free pictures is pretty much only acceptable if you're using them to illustrate commentary on the item in question. (Ie, movie posters or book covers are only okay for an article on that book or movie). While I think it's a great picture, I can't think of a fair use rational that would let it be used in Transhumanism. It might be ok if it were in an article where you were critically discussing the original article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, but it doesn't look like any of it's current usages meet that requirement. Sorry. Have you tried looking on commons or flickr for free media that would be somewhat close (or at least acceptable?) Best, --Bfigura (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm not aware of any tranny fanatics out there, and I haven't heard anyone trying replace images with cooler ones. The only thing I've seen is there is a non-contextual, non-free image of a book cover placed on a macro-topic article. This violates WP policies. Furthermore the fair-use reason was found to be insufficent. I agree the image would be acceptable only on the Chronicle of Higher Ed article but even then it should use the actual cover image and not the cropped artwork. I encourge you to find a free or approved image of the book cover for use in the Chronicle article. --Lemmey talk 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-
Purse_Differences_Between_the_PGA_and_LPGA_Tour
Just letting you know that I fixed the link in the AfD message. For some reason it wasn't linking correctly to the AfD page. Enigma message 03:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Huh, how weird. I'll go check twinkle's bug reports. Thanks for the fix. --Bfigura (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Only thing I can think of is that it doesn't include the underscores when dealing with an article that has several words in the name. It won't link correctly unless the underscores are included in the space for the AfD link. I also use Twinkle for AfD listings. It's ridiculous how much faster it is than manually doing the steps yourself. Enigma message 03:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder
Hello. I've started this RfC/U, which contains a link to a discussion between you and the user as evidence. Fram (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's me
Please go ahead. --Bfigura (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done, and done. My pleasure to be of assistance, and I think I understand. Please feel free to let me know if there's something else I can do to assist you. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Re How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries
You might at least let me complete my deletion nom before you jump in. I edit by hand rather than with scripts, and it would be nice to have a few minutes to type in my rationale. Deor (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that :S I didn't even see your tag when I started mine up with twinkle. (Twinkle doesn't do anything until I finish writing up my nomination, so I didn't see the page reload with your nomination until after I submitted mine). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
College essays
You think we should let the user(s) know that they can't just upload their essays to Wikipedia? Or has that been done already? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, it's been done. See User:Globalecon/Global_Economics and User talk:Globalecon. Apparently the students aren't reading the giant banner I stuck up there. They're all loading them individually, which I suppose is at least one policy that's being followed. I'm almost tempted to add <blink> tags to the sucker. (That or stick a gold star by the one good essay, and frowny faces next to all the ones that have been deleted / are at AfD / have been redirected). --Bfigura (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The good professor
Not really, from my understanding. the guidelines of the project were to submit a new article to wikipedia, turn in the original copy to him. He told his students not to take the criticism personally, and that they would get alot of "crap" They all turned them in on the last day of class, so I guess that did not leave much time for him to share his personal feelings with the class. Apparently, the professor wrote an article himself which was swiftly deleted, I have never talked to the guy nor have I seen him, but I've heard a lot about this project which has gone so awry! Tekjester (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds like a confirmation of what in fact is rather too evident: that they ain't coming back. I say, delete 'em all. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's at least some that are decent. (I seem to recall that at least one of the students did some editing after the initial upload). But I still think that the prof needs to trouted. --Bfigura (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bfigura thanks for your kind comments on my talk page re the GlobalEcon Tips. I'd keep the essays that are currently userfied. The GlobalEcon 'project' is a textbook example of the worst possible way to use Wikipedia as an assignment. It will be useful to point future education projects, (especially potentially problematic ones) not only to the fate of the articles, i.e., the table, but also to concrete examples of what is truly, madly, deeply unsuitable. Having said that, I don't think admins who close deletion debates or speedy delete articles from this project should feel obliged to userfy them. We already have quite few quite spiffy examples of dire contributions from this project.;-) (This is a shortened version of my comments at the ANI). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur: no sense userfying everything by default, as it's likely going to be sit there unchanged until MfD'd. And I agree about the GlobalEcon class, it's probably worth keeping around in it's present form so that it can serve as a warning to others :) Best, --Bfigura (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Working hard for the money?
Thanks for answering the contentious gentleman on my talk page -- I had dinner guests arriving and couldn't follow through on what I'd started. It's reassuring to know you're keeping a watchful eye on my talk page! LOL Now what I'm trying to decide -- is $50 for making a Wikipedia page way too much, or way too little? <grin> Accounting4Taste:talk 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Shop.com is ridiculous.
It's ridiculous for this to be removed. Pricegrabber, MySimon, Shopzilla, and Nextag are on, why not Shop.Com? If we're not going to include companies then let's not include companies. But Shop.Com is a giant. Wikipedia will include tiny little web companies and brick and mortar companies but not Shop.Com??? Drewhamilton (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you'll look at the article, you'll note that I changed my mind and removed the deletion tag about 2 seconds after I initially tagged it. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, my mistake. What can I add to establish more notability. It's obviously huge. I feel like adding more makes it seem like an advertisement and all it really deserves is just a stub acknowledging it's existence. Drewhamilton (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, my fault for tagging in the first place -- it just seemed link a standard spam article until I looked at who the CEO was in more detail, etc. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It still has a notability tag though... Drewhamilton (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know, I thought there's probably more sources out there to establish notability, so I left it up in the hope that they'd get added by someone. But if you'd prefer to take the tag down, I don't have a problem with that. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Monitor (Kirksville, MO)
The references given were published not in a university press release as you seem to believe, but in an award-winning University and community paper. The lack of media outlets in the Kirksville area have made the Truman State University Index the most reliable online outlet for community matters. Its multiple awards speak to its credibility. As such, it should qualify as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skintastic666 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't think a university news outlet commenting on another university publication really meets the standard in reliable sources. I also am not sure I see the harm in leaving the tags, since they make it more likely that someone else will add sourcing if they happen to know of any. (Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'll drop a welcome notice below this comment). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Closing Dell's RfA
I won't argue with the snow close, but please be careful about your edit summaries. You basically locked in a mention of racism to the history of WP:RFA for all time when you removed the RFA, and if you research it a little, it is very likely that it isn't a fair accusation. I've added a comment to the closed RFA, but that doesn't do anything to the edit summary. --barneca (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Crap, apologies. (Somewhat sad that I manage to create a BLP issue by trying to avoid one). Would a RFO going to mess with anything on RfA? --Bfigura (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think an RFO on the edit to WP:RFA would be appropriate, and painless. I'm thinking of somehow delicately bringing this up on WT:RFA (not your edit summary; that's an understandable mistake) for how to deal with the RFA itself, but I don't think RFO is needed there; deleting the rfa and selectiely restoring should work there. --barneca (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As a quibble though, I'm not sure I understand why you think it's not a fair accusation though. Unless the account was compromised, this is racist vandalism. The fact that it's followed by a Hahaha edit doesn't make it more palatable (juvenile maybe though). A second diff would seem to suggest juvenile racist remarks rather that something more serious, but I think it's still a racist remark to make. Saw the compromised account issues, although I'm somewhat unsure on how that was overcome. (I thought it was impossible to recover lost passwords. Maybe the vandal didn't change it?)Saw the explanation elsewhere. I'll put in for the RFO though. --Bfigura (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)- RfO is in. --Bfigura (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm to the point now where I don't much care anymore whether the WP:RFA edit summary gets removed or not, but I am curious. Since it's still there, did an oversighter get back to you, and say it wasn't worth oversighting? Or are you in the dark about the status? Like I said, just curious. --barneca (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- RfO is in. --Bfigura (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
breed section
I rewrote the text and I think it is improved. Could you have a look again? Karak1 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
note to self: check up on this soonish --Bfigura (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Bfigura.
I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
