User talk:Deiz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: Talk 1 - Talk 2 - Talk 3 - Talk 4 - Talk 5 - Talk 6 - Talk 7 - Talk 8 - Talk 9 - Talk 10 - RfAs - Trophies
Welcome to my talk page

I'm pretty easy going about what goes on here. However, if you have come here regarding an administrative action I have taken that you disagree with or wish to be clarified, or regarding a copyedit or cleanup I have performed, please ensure that you:

  • Maintain a civil tone and are clearly interested in improving the encyclopedia.
  • Bear in mind that I have been an editor since December 2005 and an administrator since May 2006, and have a big fat pile of edits - I am in no way "better" than any other editor, but I may have a greater understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice than many. To put it another way, Wikipedia is not the Stanford Prison Experiment.
  • Know that I do not hate you (I love you), nor do I hate your company, group, product or friend (at worst, I am ambivalent towards it / them, and I may well love them too)
  • Have read any and all links to guidelines or polices included in my edit summaries or talk page edits related to your reason for being here.
  • Understand that disruptive, trolling or otherwise undesirable or unconstructive messages will be treated as they would on any other Wikipedia page.
  • It's "Deiz". D-E-I-Z. Not Diez, Diaz or any other Spanish sounding misspelling... If anybody wants some raw data about dyslexia among WP contributors, I've got it in spades..

Contents

[edit] Re: Aggie Moffat

Ah, yeah, I thought she was nominated for a merge initially, but it appears it was a redirect. I shall bow to the AfD, though I may link to the section mentioning her in Souness' article. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. They were left over from the Aggie Moffat section removal (i.e., it was a subsection of her section). - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Time 100

Hi. I didn't mean to act like I owned the article and was unwelcoming of other contributions. However I did add back just one of the photos you removed because your intention was to remove only the images of people listed less than 3 times, but you accidentally removed the image of someone listed five times. Slackergeneration (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on your comments on the talk page about the gallery becoming too much if we include the twice listed people, perhaps we should still include them, but get rid of the gallery, kind of like the older version of the article you can check out here: [1] Slackergeneration (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WALES FOOTBALL PHOTOS

Deiz, Thank you for your message. I was at one stage a self-employed professional football photographer. I personally took all of these images and hold the full and unequivocal copyright licenses. I am very keen for these images to be used rather than going to waste on my hard drive and am therefore more than happy for the Wikipedia community to benefit from their display in the public domain. Please get in touch if there's any further issues and I'll do my best to explain. Cheers, Dan (sorry, I can't find the 'new thread' button so this message might be in the wronf place!)

[edit] Re:Images

You're right I didn't create them but I didn't know which option to pick so I thought it would be easiest to state that because I knew the creator of the images wouldn't contest it. I bought the images from a guy who gave me permission to use them however I liked but I didn't have an email or anythign to prove that to Wikimedia. SO yeah, what do you suggest I list it as? REZTER TALK ø 11:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Thanks for the offer (and also the warm welcome), I'll think to ask you when all else fails ;) As for Rezter, I chose him from the adoption page because we seem to have a few things in common (some music (The Strokes for example), age, interest in art). Of course I wouldn't insist on being adopted if he'd rather have a Slipknot child :) Thanks, Lukas (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LEJOG by Public Transport

I'm not sure your edit is right. As I understand it, if you are a resident of England, you travel free in England but pay in Scotland. If you are a resident of Scotland, you travel free in Scotland but pay in England. This is the government website which is supposed to explain it:[2] Mhockey (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC article suggests he did it all for free, and there is such a scheme in Scotland, even if he would not normally qualify for it, hence I think I'm good. There does appear to have been some special permission granted here, presumably dispensation for him to use the Scottish scheme, but the BBC doesn't make the precise details clear. By the way, if your edit listing the price of a journey by public transport was achieved by tapping destinations and arbitrary dates into search forms on a travel site, you've breached WP:OR. Deiz talk 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meridian, Mississippi#Education

Why is it ok to allow MSU-Meridian campus and Meridian Community College to have an external link on this page, but not any of the private schools in the city? There are tons of external links about specific topics on many pages; how is this one any different? It's always been my understanding that if there isn't a wiki article on the subject, one should external link to it; have I been mislead?

(If that sounded like it was in a sarcastic tone, it wasn't. I'm strictly asking a question haha) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urquhart

Sorry, yes, that was one of the changes I intended to make when restoring the Bishop infobox, but I forgot in the end. David Underdown (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion of James Wesley Rawles

Why did you delete the James Wesley Rawles article when there was clearly a majority in consensus for keeping it? Please restore the article. Obviously the guy is noteworthy. BTW, he was just quoted again, here:

 http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html

....where he was referred to by the CNN reporter as "the unofficial spokesman" for the global survivalist movement. Thx, Trasel (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact you mention "majority" implies you're perhaps somewhat inexperienced with the decision making process surrounding deletion debates. Your position that he is "quoted" in the media, and therefore notable, is also out of step with WP:BIO. The outcome, however clouded by duplicate votes, users with no record of contributions and various misreadings of policies and guidelines, was actually very clear. If you speak to the other editors involved in the debate with a substantial history of edits in a variety of areas and a proven, applied knowledge of policy (I believe User:NawlinWiki was one), they'll tell you the same thing. Sorry if it wasn't the result you were hoping for. Cheers, Deiz talk 13:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


--- I simply ask that you objectively reconsider your decision, rather than having to go through another lengthy review process.

If the same rationale on noteworthiness were applied to other wiki biographies, then perhaps half of them would be deleted. Somehow, in the topsy-turvy logic of Wikipedia, being "noted", "quoted", and an "expert" doesn't confer notability??? I think that Michael Z. Williamson (who, like Rawles is an author that is the subject of a wiki biography) summed it up nicely: "Nah, the [wikipedia] bandwidth could be better used for Expendable Crewman #3 in Episode 87."

Please read the article in the link that I just sent you, and objectively ask yourself, "Does it just quote him, or is it ABOUT him?" I'd say it is the latter.

For someone to be quoted so widely, seen as a subject matter expert and influential, and even labeled by a journalist as "the unofficial spokesman of the movement" indicates to me that he is indeed noteworthy. I see him quoted regularly.

In addition to direct quotes, there are indirect references. Here is an example, from Fortune magazine that cites his quote in the recent New York Times article: http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/14/markets/gold_appeal.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008041705

I appreciate your objectivity and wisdom as a wiki administrator. Sincerely, Trasel (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I checked all relevant links when closing the debate, and nothing I have seen since gives me cause to reconsider my decision. The CNN link does feature Mr Rawles and quote him, but I disagree that some web coverage in a lifestyle / feature section of the CNN website adequately secures his notability - the article is about "survivalism" (which is fairly clearly presented as a fringe movement), rather than Mr Rawles, and it seems to me that their featuring of Mr Rawles and the enigmatic "Derek" is more akin to an investigative piece that would speak to "Sally" about the life of a street worker rather than serious, primary coverage of an individual. In any case, the debate was closed on its own merits, and you should also be aware that this is the third time this article has been deleted, in December of 2006 (WP:PROD) and again in December of 2007 (WP:CSD). Your comment that "perhaps half" of other biographical articles on Wikipedia is, I have to say, spurious in the context of this debate. I appreciate this is a topic you are deeply interested in, as evidenced by your contributions to Wikipedia. However, I'll be honest with you - I believe this interest is making it extremely difficult for you to be truly objective on this matter. Again, sorry if you disagree with this decision, but I remain of the view that it was the correct one. FYI it's approaching midnight in my timezone, hence any further interaction over this (which I am happy to enter into) will have to take place after I've had a good night's sleep. Thanks, Deiz talk 14:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Rawles was also quoted just today, in The New York Sun: http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

For someone that Wikipeia deems non-notable, he sure gets noted in the newspapers a lot!

Trasel (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

He sure does. Well, I think I've said all I really have to say in this phase of the discussion.. Seems if you could build a new article in your userspace, stripped of blog / forum type noise and references, maybe taking style notes from a nice clean biographical article of a genuinely famous person, e.g. an author, I'd be happy to offer what advice or help I could. If, however, any new article resembled the old one which was a total mess, it could be speedily deleted as a recreation of deleted content. For that reason I would advise not taking any new article live until you're absolutely happy with it, a fourth deletion would be very difficult to come back from. Give me a shout if theres anything I can do. If there were any further deletion debate about this topic, I would advise any editor without an account, or who has recently registered an account, NOT to comment. Experienced users are very wary of niche debates that attract a suspicious following of new editors, and it's always clear who's who. Deiz talk 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jackass Number Two

I removed the 'Written By' seciton on the infobox because the movie was written by the entire cast. The source says "Screenplay, Sean Cliver, Preston Lacy.". Obviously thats inaccurate since theres no screenplay for Jackass Number Two. And again its also innacurte since it was written by everyone not just Sean Cliver and Preston Lacy.

My suggest would be to not have that section at all in the infobox, just like in the Lost (TV series) article they don't have "starring" in their infobox because it would be to long. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sounds reasonable, the issue is that removal of cited information from a reliable source should be accompanied by a valid rationale in the edit summary at minimum, and a note on the talk page. If an experienced user (in this case Ocatecir, who is also an admin and the founder of Wikiproject Jackass) reverts your edit, you're at the R stage of WP:BRD, and its always good form to go to D rather than repeating the R. Cheers, Deiz talk 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Wesley Rawles

Could you shoot me a copy of this deleted article? A less experienced wikipedian asked if he could figure out a way to make it work more appropriately. If possible, could you drop it here: [[3]]? Thank you!! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 06:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to, although I'm just going to hang on until Trasel lets me know about his intentions for the page, and some assurances that he understands the work required, the consequences of reposting the material without substantial improvements in various areas, and the regulations surrounding storing deleted pages in userspace. Given that the article has been deleted three times, it's very important that it isn't simply touched up and reposted - that's going to result in a fourth deletion, likely a speedy, and a protected title, which I'm sure is not on Trasel's wishlist. Trasel, hopefully you'll see this and can respond here. Deiz talk 10:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--- I"d like to see to see a new biography written on this man, since he is frequently noted and quoted in the print media, and prominently mentioned in related wiki articles. (Such as the Survivalism and Retreat (survivalism) pieces.) My attempts at editing it were deemed substandard by more than one editor, despite the fact that I included copious references. (There were 37 references in a bio that just had 35 lines of narrative.) So at this point, since my Wiki writing style was obviously lacking, I'd prefer to see someone else write it--from scratch, if need be. To avoid further controversy, I'll refrain from doing much more than adding references to it. I'd appreciate the time and effort required to salvage this article. Humbly, Trasel (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A major problem with the previous article was the quality of the references and their reliance on blogs, unreliable sources and tendency to highlight cases of Mr Rawles being quoted, rather than receiving primary coverage. The approach with references should certainly be quality, and never need be quantity for quantity's sake. Given that the previous article did, as you note, contain 37 references yet was still deleted, I remain unconvinced that recreation of this article is merited. The CNN reference above does not, in my humble opinion, confer notability, and is probably the "best" reference I have yet seen. Cross references in Wikipedia articles - bear in mind Wikipedia is a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone - are never an indication of notability. Perhaps you could indicate 3 or 4 of the references you wish to include, and outline why you believe they satisfy both WP:RS, and the primary notability criterion of WP:BIO? Deiz talk 14:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
for my part, the editor that would like a copy isn't Trasel if that makes a difference...I'm not the MOST experienced article writer, but I'm most willing to help out with making sure this is more appropriately ref'd before it goes live. I have no opinion on the subject matter one way or the other, but thats the great bit about WP :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed no, given that you made the request and would like the article to be placed in your userspace, the editor asking for the copy is you :) Presumably you've seen the AfD on this matter, which along with the conversations here should give you a flavour of what the article looked like. As above, I'm willing to pass on the content of the previous article, but I believe it is most definitely in the interests of any future article that we can see a few references that will be used to establish the notability of the subject before doing so. I'd also like to get the opinion of a couple of experienced editors who contributed to the AfD, User:NawlinWiki for one, on proposed references. Without satisfactory refs the article will simply be deleted again, hence I'd rather get some consensus going here first, lest anyone spend a great deal of time on a stillborn article. As happened yesterday, it's bedtime here, hopefully there will be some refs for me to check out in the morning. Deiz talk 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem giving Legotech the deleted text and letting him/her have a chance to try to find reliable sources. They may be out there, but the article as posted didn't yet have them. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

As per your request, here are a few of the notability references on Rawles, starting with the most recent:

http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

http://arlingtoncardinal.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/4/21/3652291.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=96250 >>>Here is the original source for same article, at the NY Times site, but they require registration to access some older articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html

http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080408131354.aspx

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14119

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE929EEB312718&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

http://derekclontz.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/second-great-depression-just-weeks-away-warns-expert/


And here couple of others, that were cited but may no longer be available online:

THURSDAY OFFERS A MINI-Y2K SITUATION, EXPERTS SAY The Sacramento Bee, September 8, 1999

"Do you live in fear of the millennium?", South China Morning Post, April 6, 1999

There are also numerous on-line references, but since Wikipedia referencing is geared twrad print books and journalism, I'll just note one that is about him: http://www.onlinetradersforum.com/showthread.php?p=98454

Let me know if I can help you further. Thx, Trasel (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through these, but what we need is articles ABOUT him, not just places where he's quoted. Tons of people are quoted in the papers daily, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. There are also a lot of people that the news call as experts to appear on reports about certain situations, but being an expert in a field also doesn't make you notable, otherwise we'd have to have an article about just about every college professor in the world :) Which appears to be where this breaks down...let's see what else we can find that was written about him. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. Of the references listed above, only the New York Times, New York Sun and CNN would qualify as reliable sources, so you can dismiss the others - these would not be suitable for inclusion as references in a Wikipedia article, and do not confer notability. On the RS/BIO test, that's a fail/fail. The articles that are from reliable sources do not feature Rawles as their primary topic. They are articles about survivalism that include a quote and / or background information about Mr. Rawles. So pass/fail. What I foresee in any future article is another mass of these kind of references, which will put the article at serious risk of being speedily deleted. What I'm looking for are articles from reliable sources with this individual's name in the title. Where are they? It should also be noted that an article about JWR should contain exactly one external link to survivalblog, and one link to his other website. There should not be individual links to separate articles on either site. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 7 would be "OK, I think this guy squeezes into the notability criteria", I'm at about 4.3 right now, .3 ahead of where I was when I closed the AfD. Deiz talk 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

As was discussed at length in the AFD debate, Rawles is best known for his novel and for his blog, which have not been covered heavily by the print media. (I think that the newspapers are still fairly ignorant of the societal impact of the blogs.)

Even though his novel has been in print off and on for 10 years, it still has a sales ranks under 1,500 on Amazon. I find that pretty amazing, considering that most novels from the smaller publishers drop off the radar after about two years. His blog (that has deep archives and some static pages) is considered a standard reference on survival and preparedness. He is pretty much a survivalism guru and very well known in those circles. One of the other survivalist bloggers called him "The Dark Overlord of Yuppie Survivalism." His blog gets a surprising amount of traffic for a niche blog. (Something like 71,000 unique visits a week--although I haven't seen its statistics page first hand.)

There are hundreds of other novelists with far smaller readership that are deemed notable enough in Wikipedia to justify a bio. Why not him? Given the current media interest in survivalism, it seems apropos. One proviso: Interest in survivalism looks to be cyclical. It peaked in the late 1970s, again in the late 1990s (just before the Y2K rollover), and it seems to have been resurgent in the last few months--what with anxiety over crude oil prices, food shortages, and the credit market whammy. So this will likely fade out again for a few years. But I think that Rawles is certainly notable.

I can look for some more refs, but I don't think that there is much more out there than what I've already sent to Deiz. They should suffice. TTFN,

Trasel (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.. I'll take a look at the refs when I have time, should get a chance later today. Deiz talk 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Could I please have that copy of the article? I will not be using Trasel for the rewrite, so his refs are useful but not the end of the line either. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Deiz, any chance I can have your opinion on WP:Bio "Any biography

   * The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
   * The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

Appears he certainly covers the second bit quite well as is? I'll completely agree it needs cleanup and a reduction in the number of blog and self referential refs, but no matter how you or I feel about the subject matter of the guy's expertise, he does appear to be considered an expert by the press. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a secondary criterion, and is not related to being an "expert", but making an "enduring historical contribution". JWR is a contemporary figure in a contemporary movement, and the spirit of this criterion is to include people who were around before mass media and the internet, or are active in fields that are, for some reason, not likely to produce individuals who would normally pass the primary criterion. Any modern-day "notable", especially in a field that appeals to tech-savvy, middle class white people, should not need to rely on this criterion, and it should not be applied to people who have not, as yet, been fully judged by history. Deiz talk 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact remains that he's never been presented as notable in any verifiable way. Nobody has ever come up with an article that's about him. All we have is tangential stuff that doesn't meet WP:RS standards. One prime example of this is the Amazon fluff offered above--any non-notable self-published book can be listed on Amazon, and then anybody can drive the numbers up by placing bulk orders. Because it can so easily be manipulated (like Google hits for blogs), the Amazon ranking really doesn't mean a thing, and it certainly can't be used to satisfy WP:RS to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think that this previously mentioned article is indeed *about* Rawles: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html It is not just quoting him. The second half of the article talks about his life, where he lives, what the foods that he subsists on, mentions his wife, describes his demeanour, etc. Here is a quote from the article:

(note - quote removed, can be seen in the article linked above)

That is far beyond what most journalists would write just to substantiate a quote about current events. Trasel (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've already commented on this ref. It's the best I've seen, but still features JWR in a piece about a more general topic, which it presents as a fringe movement. I know you're trying, but it's not primary coverage, and while this could certainly be used in an article, you would need more, better refs than this to assert notability. Deiz talk 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Break 2

Not to beat the little horsie into glue, but he was interviewed yesterday on Fox about food shortages...I realize the guy is a wingnut, but putting that aside, I really think he's met the bar at this point. You can see my evaluation of the "socks" in the AfD here: [[4]]
Rawles has been characterized as a "survivalist nut job" over at the revived AFD discussion. Lets look at this at a 30,000 foot view: He's clearly a subject matter expert. He regularly gets called on to share his expertise by both the print and broadcast media. (Most recently on Fox News: http://www.truveo.com/Load-Up-The-Pantry/id/739652561 ).

I've agreed to step back from this and let Legotech write new wiki bio, from scratch.

I admit that I am a survivalist and a fan of Rawles--both his novel and his blog. But I have never consciously allowed this to color my edits, and I have NEVER been one to nominate a wiki page for deletion. But others have blinded themselves to their own biases and have perhaps subconsciously let themselves exercise their bias--in relentless edits and AFD nominations of wiki pieces where they have a disagreement or even just a vague dislike. Further, they have used the Wiki rules with virtuoso precision to get things their own way.

Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." (See: http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html )

Elsewhere, in 2006, Wales mentioned that only 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia. (See: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2 )

There is bias in Wikipedia, and fighting it is an ongoing struggle. This debate over the deletion of the JWR bio page is a good example of a microcosom of a macrocosm. I suspect that Rawles is disliked not just because he is survivalist--which is a fringe movement--but also because he is a conservative, a Christian, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-homescholing.

I think that I am a good judge of who is notable in the survivalist movement. Why? MOST of what I do in wikipedia is write and edit biographies of survivalist authors. (I know, it a weird specialty, but there are also people that specialize in editing pages on other obscure and arcane topics.) Having read and edited many of these pages in detail, and keeping close tabs on the various Survivalist blogs and forums, I can tell you forthrightly that Jim Rawles IS notable. If you go to any survivalist blog or forum on the Internet and type in "Rawles" or "survivalblog" in a search box, you'll probably see that he is very frequently cited and linked.

Try any of these, for example:

http://tslrf.blogspot.com/

http://www.survivalistboards.com/

http://bisonsurvivalblog.blogspot.com/

http://www.survivalfiles.info/

http://www.commanderzero.com/

And just to show that he is not just known in the US, here is one in Australia: http://www.aussurvivalist.com/forum/

The objections to the Rawles bio page seem to center on two issues: First, his notability and second the fact that some his books were published by Print-on-Demand publishers. (The latter is what seems to have attracted Qworty's attention, since it is one of his pet peeves.) To my mind, both of those issues have both been resolved.

I think that it is time to get on with the task at hand: writing a quality bio piece about him. As I said before, I'll just drop in references to what others write and otherwise leave my hands off.

The fact the subject of the bio is controversial or disliked should not be used as an excuse for "censorship via AFD" wikilegalism. If that were allowed to be the modus operandi for Wikipedia, then there would be no wiki bio pages on either Pol Pot or even Barry Manilow. -- Trasel (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I've been away for a couple of days so forgive me if I haven't kept up with this. The thing that most concerns me right now is that you (Trasel) intend to add references to the piece. Aside from the question of his notability, you don't seem to have a great grasp of what is accepted as a reliable, notable reference. The fact that you provide link after link with the word "blog", "forum" or "surviv-" somewhere in the URL makes me want to scream. References to establish notability must be from accredited, major-media sources, and must feature the subject as the primary focus of their coverage. Any other links are not helping at this stage. We know he is all over the blogosphere, forums and niche sites about survivalism. I find it hard to listen to your musings about bias on WP when you clearly don't understand WP:RS, which is a pretty damn fair piece of legislation. Wikipedia is not a blog, or a synthesis of blogs, or obliged to feature topics which are commonly blogged about - it is an encyclopedia which just happens to be a freely editable website, and draws a similar cross-section of white-bread humanity as blogging, which is why a lot of people get confused. If we can't get down to working together on the brass tacks of notability - which is different to coverage, popularity, name-recognition, column inches, hits, clicks and disciples - then I'm not going to be able to help you much. I appreciate Qworty and others are blunt about their opinions, but from what I've seen they understand more about how and why Wikipedia works the way it does. Deiz talk 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need your advice

Hi there, I saw that someone was being a pain as usual on wikipedia creating accounts with aa...ss as can be seen here Why wasn't it possible for you to block the IP address where the user was creating the account from? Are you allowed to do this or is this only for the rare Checkusers in extreme circumstances? Surely there must be an easier way. This surely can be considered vandalism because you know there only going to create trouble with a bunch of letters like that.

By the way, is it possible whether you can follow this up for me here this user with a bunch of letters similar to above made 1 vandal edit yday and i think it should be blocked indefinitely. I reported it to username for admin attention but it looked like all the admins were asleep. What do you think? Your the expert. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a long term problem with a particular IP creating such addresses.. I just blocked an inappropriate username I happened to notice after it edited one of my watchlisted pages. If there is a pattern, someone who contributes regularly to WP:UAA may be interested? There are various issues regarding blocking IPs, including - as you mentioned - the need for checkuser priveliges to investigate such matters, which I don't have. I used to take a keener interest in this kind of thing, but not so much recently. Sorry I can't be of more help, Deiz talk 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User: Quorty

I more or less agree with Quorty's assessment of the self-publishers. What bugs me is the tone he takes in every dispute. Without much investigation, he slams every tool at his disposal at articles and users who work on them. Every user page request is mean-spirited, no one is ever given benefit of the doubt. I post now from my IP so I won't get beat up by him on my registered page -- in an hour or so there will be a marker put on the IP page showing where it's from and implying some kind of misdoing or accusing it outright.

Quorty is a very powerful user, and there's really nothing regular joes like me can do about his nonsense. Is there anything a higher end user like you can do? Or somebody, just to get him to dial it back a notch or two? It's not the Spanish Inquisition -- it's a bunch of people working for free on a community encyclopedia project. I know I'm super-discouraged from creating new and notable content just for dread of having to spend my time wrangling with him instead of actually working on Wikipedia. 72.241.98.90 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree his style is not softly-softly, but WP is a broad church, and from what I've seen I would judge his approach as no-nonsense, and certainly on the "deletionist" end of the spectrum, but within the rules. If you came to WP as a "neutral" editor and spent some time learning how it all works and saw the kind of content that some editors push then you would understand why people popular in the blogosphere, related to fringe movements and theories, or "actors" who appeared in one episode of a teen drama or porn film etc. etc., are viewed with suspicion by some, and the standards about referencing and notability strictly applied in such cases. My WP:CHILL essay covers this kind of ground as well. Is Qworty powerful? Sure, but so is any editor who knows policy and has got their hands dirty all over Wikipedia. If he was truly out of line, someone higher up would have stepped in by now, but his record is clean as far as blocks are concerned. If you guys have a truly serious interpersonal issue there are avenues you can go down, which I hope will be unnecessary. Deiz talk 09:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Wesley Rawles

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this just deleted? Tnxman307 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake! I didn't see this: "AfD relisted per WP:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#James Wesley Rawles .28closed.29" listed on the AfD page. Sorry to bother you. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No probs. I'm staying out of all this. Deiz talk 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] BAM

Just to know... why did you delete the BAM definition for "Binary Angle of Measurement"?

That exists, event if you don't know about it...

Binary Angle of Measurement, standardized binary words used to transfer angular measurements between shipboard tactical data system equipments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.46.90 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there was no linked article. Disambiguation pages are internal pages to disambiguate between existing articles, not to list all possible meanings of an acronym. Hope that's cleared things up. Deiz talk 09:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok then , but it would have been easier to add the red link that exists in many disambiguation pages than just deleting it...213.170.46.90 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No. Dab pages should not contain redlinks. Feel free to delete any you find. Deiz talk 22:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What are the odds that I would stumble on this conversation? I added "Binary Angle of Measurement" to the BAM dab page. It was my first edit! I don't blame you for removing it though, I didn't know much about Wikipedia when I added it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks deiz

Yeah, it's pretty tough editing on wp. I disagree that general information on a player's family is trivial; afterall, professional career data isn't the only pertinent information regarding a player's life. However, I think KBO related pages are one of your specialties so I leave it to your discretion. I would like to see an up-to-date player picture on the pages too, but can't seem to upload a picture. Thanks for all the good work Deiz! Baseballhero (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There are special provisions regarding info about living people at WP:BLP. It's also pretty easy to infer that he would live in or around the city where he plays, hence it simply isn't necessary to mention it. It was also unsourced, and as such can be removed per WP:V. Please ask if theres anything else you want to know, and please take it in good spirit if I edit any of your edits! Cheers, Deiz talk 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AfD closure

You're right, it's not worth the bother. Thanks for sharing your opinion. As I said, I was extremely disappointed to see my good intentions having been misconstrued. Please understand that everything I do here, I do in the faith that I am improving the project, and I shall not let this minor dent in my esteem from continuing to do so. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moulthrop article

I am trying to contribute information about the Moulthrop family. I cited several magazine articles and newspaper articles and you have deleted my entry stating that the "WP diff". I am new to wikipedia - please explain what this means and what I need to do to have this information properly posted. You help would be appreciated.--Millie04 (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete of article Pretty Rave Girl

The page you deleted was vandalised, and lacking the rollback feature i really couldn't be bothered to put it back. The article was tagged with a speedy delete without me being notified, or i would have contested it and improved the article. I do not believe it should have been deletd per CSD A1 as it was lacking in a large amount of information, but was still classed as a stub and was relativly informative (before it had been vandalised, of course.) and is a moderatly well known, being featured on many videos. I am not saying you we're wrong to delete, but it would have been nice to of been notified so i could have improved the article. Regardless, i will not fight your decision :)! I just thought id tell you! Have a great day! Matt (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no tag, I simply deleted it outright - there was nothing in any revision I saw to suggest the song was notable, primarily because the artist appears to be non-notable. Pretty clear cut, imo. Deiz talk 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I still don't believe an outright delete was appropriate but thats just my opinion. Regardless, whats done is done. Best, Matt (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spelling

Yes, "Majin Buu" was moved to its preferred name by WP:WPDB, "Majin Boo". Reason why I had recently taken off Bam's Unholy Union from Buu was mainly because Bam's Unholy Union did not make a reference to the dab term. I was just following JHunterJ's example, but perhaps it could be discussed again? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As BUU is still the acronym of the show, the only thing I'd see to discuss is whether Majin Boo belongs on the Buu page, given there is already a see also link to Boo (disambiguation). I've asked JHJ for clarification on the basis for removing articles without specifically referenced acronyms from dab pages. Deiz talk 03:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If you ask me, I'd say the Dragon Ball reference on Buu is legit. Reason why I used a redirect was because WP:PIPING recommends it. See also the brief discussion I had with J. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
If the character is alternatively spelt as Buu (6+ years in Asia, I know the pain of transliteration), it's fine with me. Interpreting the balance between piping and redirecting on a dab page from an alternative spelling is trickier, but looks OK. Deiz talk 05:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:D#Disambiguation pages: "Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article." -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Granted, the flag / canton example makes that clear, but I fail to see how that applies to acronyms in any way, shape or form. You do realize that, if the article title has the initials in question, that they are already very much "described on the target article", in bold, capital letters. I wish I had time to reinstate the valid links already purged from dab pages on other acronyms. Disambiguation pages are there to help people find articles in the encyclopedia, why make them harder to find? But don't take my word for it, here's a line from WP:D: "Ask yourself: When readers enter a given term in the Wikipedia search box and push "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" I don't know about you, but when I type a set of initials or acronym in the search bar, I damn sure expect a list of all the articles we have with those initials. Deiz talk 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I have taken this dispute to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Requesting clarification. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Three people, including myself, have conveyed that the page must cite the initials regardless of how obvious it may be. I am not trying to "battle", just following protocol. If you are going to respond please respond on your talk page (which I've watchlisted). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still seeing nothing in policy or guideline to support removing this or similar links. Protocol means following rules and common practice, not imposing your own mystifying interpretation of a guideline because a couple of editors voice opinions which are similar to your own. 2 opinions made in a few hours about a non-existent, non-common practice point are not consensus. I would also disagree with your use of the word "must". By all means propose an addition to the guideline, which is the only way I see this leading to an actionable outcome. Deiz talk 05:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask you a question: what does WP:D#Disambiguation pages mean to you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow your point. It's part of our guideline on disambiguation - a system designed to help readers find relevant pages to their search query throughout the encyclopedia. It contains nothing that disallows or discourages the common practice of listing articles by their acronyms on an obscure technicality. Deiz talk 01:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)