User talk:Debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.

Contents

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for requesting protection for 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq. I didn't know there's a mechanism for getting protection. Maybe this will slow the POV assault the page was suffering. --JaGa (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers mate. ;-) Debate (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images and COI

A valid point. Ty 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I might reintroduce it at some stage after a little reworking. Thanks. :) Debate (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Art4em's contributions

Hi there. I'd just like to clear up why you called some of Art4em (talk · contribs)'s contributions hoaxes. Hoaxes are obvious misinformations, not simply unsourceable or poorly sourced well-intentioned articles. I'm not trying to stir the pot, but I'd like to understand how this perception came to be, and if there is a genuine mistake, perhaps some fence-mending would be in order. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I undertook extensive searches through academic journals, the internet, Google books and corporate websites and could find virtually no references to User:Art4em's LG Williams-related edits other than one self published website [1] and a couple of joke-style references, mostly in self-published sources see, for example [2]. There was also one 1999 trivia piece from the Daily Cal [3] (second article on same page). User:Art4em had, nonetheless, created a proliferation of detailed articles on Wikipedia related to LG Williams, most of which were later deleted per CSD G11, including LG Williams, House where the Bottom Fell out, The Party Down Scandal, Drawing Upon Art: The Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages. He had also integrated in-depth references to LG Williams in various other articles of established notability, such as Gardner's Art Through the Ages (originally 50% of content, still a disputed 20%) and still a disputed 80% of Rat Bastard Protective Association (see both talk pages). The tone of claims made about the artist were grandiose and completely unsupported by any verifiable facts (at one stage the LG Williams article claimed, for example, that he had a PhD with a non-existent category of honors from a non-existent university). Virtually all articles used identical reference lists which certainly didn't support the content, and indeed in most cases didn't even mention the author, but appeared to be designed to make the articles look credible and verifiable, even though this was not the case (see the remaining Talk:House where the Bottom Fell out). Consequently, I formed the view that there was possibly an elaborate hoax underway and sought feedback from other editors on that possibility. (ie I felt that this might be a genuine hoax and not simple vandalism, which the tag is sometimes incorrectly used for.) Not being directly involved in the San Francisco art scene I sought feedback from other editors in one related article Art4em had edited with others to see if that view was correct. As User:Art4em quotes, the text I used was "As far as I can tell the vast majority of Art4em's contributions appear to be hoaxes. If anyone more knowledgeable about the subject than I can scan an eye over his/her edits that would be much appreciated." (emphasis added) Note that, per WP:Hoax, the use of the hoax tag is to seek feedback from other editors to confirm or deny a prima facie case of hoaxing. After receiving feedback over several weeks, I have now formed the view that this is simply a non-notable individual with a significant conflict of interest engaged in comprehensive wikispamming, a similar view to that several other editors have since formed, hence why the bulk of his material has now been deleted per CSD G11. I note, however, that the complete absence of any credible, verifiable secondary or tertiary sources whatsoever to support several of his claims (an entire house as an art installation, Dennis Hopper as a member of his reconstituted "Rat Bastard Protective Association", for example) leaves me with residual concerns that although this individual does exist several of the claims made by Art4em may yet prove to be entirely false. Debate (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was referring specifically to Wally Hedrick, per his accusation here. Notwithstanding, I've added comments here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Art4em. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The message on the Wally Hedrick talk page was about Art4em, not Wally Hedrick. It was necessary to ask the question on another article since the LG Williams suite of articles were not widely edited and I needed a second opinion regarding this user's edits. Debate (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I've left a concise discussion with inline replies to the user. I would recommend staying clear solely for the purpose of not unnecessarily stirring up a pot. I've found your arguments thusfar to be spot on. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You are, of course, correct that staying clear is far and away the best approach here. My short comment on Art4em's talk page was a lapse in judgment which I was well aware of at the time, but couldn't resist going down that rabbit hole anyway. Your involvement and balanced approach is noticed and appreciated. Debate (talk)

[edit] Jack McClellan

Unfortunately, I had to decline the speedy tag you placed on this article. While the article is almost entirely negative, it also purports to be backed up by sources. CSD G10 applies to purely negative biographical articles only if they exist specifically to disparage the subject and are entirely unsoruced. I've added a strong delete to the Afd, and would expect that to close as a delete, but I can't speedy it with sources. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Just a comment as I'm happy to wait for the AFD on this one. CSD G10 as written doesn't appear to apply only in instances where the attack is unreferenced. The sentence where referencing is raised reads as if this is simply one example of where the policy applies. That is, "This includes [but is not necessarily limited to?] a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". The main criteria, however, appears to be simply that the article "serves no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity". (Whether or not the only purpose of this particular page is to disparage the subject is in my view the main arguable point here.) Debate (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there's enough wiggleroom that an argument could be made for deletion under G10, and I agree that the article comes close to meeting the main criteria. It's a close enough call, though, that I though the AfD would be the best place to discuss it. With the sources here, I can easily see this one coming back to DRV, so I think the Afd should control. In any event, thanks for discussing it. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 :-) Debate (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AutoCAD Wiki

You may be interested in contributing to wikicities:AutoCAD. I'm sure your help there would be appreciated. Tom Haws (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for March 19, 2008 anti-war protest

An editor has asked for a deletion review of March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Myheartinchile (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)