User talk:Ed Fitzgerald/archives 4 May-Jun 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ARCHIVE PAGE 4: MAY 2008

1 Continental United States
2 Caine Mutiny
3 New Project
4 Interesting user page, but I think you missed one area of major concern
5 RfC
6 Lady Aleena's future
7 Caine Mutiny II
8 Tags
9 Original Research may be all we have
10 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oscar Levant.jpg)
11 Civility
12 Block

[edit] Continental United States

I have posed a question regarding an edit of yours on the article's talk page. Just thought you might want to know. -- Jao (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caine Mutiny

Hi,

In the Plot section of The Caine Mutiny (film), you've taken out my contributions on the grounds that "There is no textual evidence that Maryk is 'prepared to forgive and forget'" and that "Keefer's motivations are not made clear in the film". When Keefer thanks him at the celebrations for not revealing his double-cross Maryk does say that the matter is "over and done with" and later tries to dissuade Greenwald from revealing Keefer's treachery with "Let's forget it, Barney". That strikes me as "evidence" enough. What do you need: a written statement by the actors, producers and director?

Also, Greenwald points out that "From the start, [Keefer] hated the Navy", as in it interfered with his writing. In the tow-line incident Queeg does state: "There will be no more novel-writing on the Caine". I think this describes some of Keefer's motivations, which were based on pure selfishness. Granted, Keefer does not make a full confession of his own, but the point of many great works of fiction, from the novel to the cinema, is that it is up to the reader and the audience to try and interpret a character's motivation and pass this on to others who are still a little puzzled by it.

With your permission, I'll restore my contributions. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(Moved the comment above to Talk:The Caine Mutiny and made response there.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting user page, but I think you missed one area of major concern

Just finished reading your user page. I think I agree 4 times. (I think I counted about 4 different ways of saying the same thing. :-) I'm definitely very, exceedingly, excessively, concerned that Wikipedia is really a popularity poll and disparages and dare I say hates "facts", labeling people like scientists that will not bow to consensus with some 9 year old in Brasil with things like WP:TRUTH, and banning them forthwith.

I'm also very concerned that the entire concept of BLP is inherently broken from the get-go. The BLP rules work (such as anything works around here) for people who are dead, and for corporations and the like that aren't too fistey. They are hopeless for people that are both living and have the extreme misfortune to end up with a Wikipedia article about them, and then find out about it.

Wikipedia, as designed, seems to me like an apparatus designed to promote libel and disparagement of living people, while also having been carefullly designed to insure that nobody is to blame for such disparagement. And also designed to insure that the people being disparaged can not do anything about it.

Indeed, it seems to me, from watching the mechanisms turn, that if some completely non-notable person ends up with a disparaging Wikipedia article about them and registers a complaint, demanding the article be removed, three things will forthwith happen:

The person will be blocked indefinitely for bad faith editing under WP:COI
Extreme effort will be made to insure that the article is retained and under no conditions can be deleted
The article will remain available and unlocked for any anonomous vandal to stick anything they want into it. Of course, the target, excuse me, subject of the article will not be allowed to contest the vandalism and popularity-poll "information" placed in it.

I'm not sure quite what to do about this. It may well resolve itself one of these days pretty soon by the simple expedient of a court order making Wikipedia vanish en toto. (Although the same people that ensure such attack articles are not removed also bluster than Wikipedia is immmune to court and government action because it has a volunteer lawyer and has corporate offices in Florida. I haven't really figured out the connection they are asserting just yet.)

Thoughts? Loren.wilton (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Loren: I'm not ignoring you. I honestly don't know exactly what my opinion is on this issue, so I'm still thinking about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way: if someone does something that makes them notable enough to warrant an article, they've been reported in the mainstream media (or other secondary sources). Should they then demand that the media retract any articles or videos done about them? Everybody has the right to privacy, but if they do something notable enough, they can't try to prevent information about them from getting out. If an article is written about a person and there is no satisfactory reason for it to be deleted, why should it be? Loren, this is an issue that's been debated many, many times. If a relatively unimportant person requests that their article is deleted and their request is honored, what's to prevent a more important person from getting their article deleted? What kind of encyclopedia would this be if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad contacted the Wikimedia Foundation and asked that his article be removed? By your logic, this should be allowable. Where should the line be drawn? What separates the barely notable from the very notable? It's not an easy situation to address. And just because a solution hasn't presented itself doesn't mean no one cares about the issue. --clpo13_(talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I see two main problems:

1. Once the article exists, anyone can defame the person anonomously. The defamation may be caught, it may not be. It could well be caught by the New York Times and broadcast around the world and picked up by all other news media likewise, and then someone comes along the next day and removes it as vandalism or unsourced from Wikipedia. But by then the person has been arrested and is being demanded foe extradition by twelve different federal governments on child porn charges going back to 1862, based on the now-removed vandalism in the Wikipedia article that claimed he was a previously unknown children's version of Jack The Ripper. The fact that we then delete it and say it is vandalism really isn't of interest to our modern tabloid media once they get some nice person that they can destroy.
2. Second: suppose anyone could demand that their article be deleted, assuming that it could be verified that it was really them asking. Suppose the result was a stub that said "a person of this name is reputed to currently exist". How many articles will we end up with like that? All living people? Probably not. All politicians? Probably not. In fact, it will probably be a vansishingly small number. Watching this play out in WP:DRAMA daily, I'd say about one person a week asks/demands their biography be deleted. The usual reason for that demand is #1 above. Many of these same people likely pay Who's Who to publish a tag on them. But they don't ahve to worry about anonomous defamation there.

Most major players, if they have ever heard of Wikipedia, aren't going to demand their articles be retracted. For one thing, they want the publicity. For another, their reputations can withstand the possibility of #1, because some editor somewhere in the newspaper might think the defamation is unlikely enough to check twice before publishing. That isn't going to happen with minor players, like Jimbo's ex lover, or the producer of some minor Hollywool slasher flick, or some woman from the midwest that was unfortunate enoutgh to be in the news for a few days because her neighbor did something, and some kid down the street decided to do a Wikipedia article on her, with citations to all the major newspapers.

If there were some way to prevent the defamation, like requiring that changes to BLP articles only appeared after a review by some number of trusted reviewers, then it wouldn't be a problem. Since that is antithecal to the concept that "anyone can libel" that Wikipedia is based on, I see it as a problem. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Well, I came back from Wikibreak about 24 hours ago. Found your note on my talk page, went over to the page and left my comments. But, 24 hours later, no one has added any comments. I guess that means the whole issue is dead? I don't really know much about these backstage areas, but I hope it worked out for you. Unschool (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, really, it's all new to me too. That's for your comment, though, I thought it was pretty perceptive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Aleena's future

Ed Fitzgerald...Several people have expressed an interest in my next probable nomination for adminship. Messaging people when it happens would look a lot like canvassing, so I would prefer not doing that. If you are interested in it, you could add this to your watchlist. If it is created, you will know, maybe even before I do depending on how often you check your watchlist. If you wish to gush prior to it being officially up, have fun, but only when it happens please. I am in no particular rush. Have a very nice day! :) - LA @ 09:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caine Mutiny II

Hello, Since you have yet again taken out my so-called "POV" views of The Caine Mutiny (film) let me tell you a little story. A couple of years ago I read a book and realised that some of the characters and events were based on real-life. I checked out several reviews but most of the critics and analysis focused on other aspects of the novel and did not raise the similarities between the characters, the events and their real-life counterparts. It would also have been difficult to get a confirmation from the late author. I therefore decided to submit an analysis of the book based on my own observations. I included them on wikipedia and they have remained ever since. Other visitors have come and made changes to my text, but the analysis has stayed. I will NOT give you the title, but no doubt in time you or some other editor will come across this analysis and take it all out. However, my point is that I believe that POV and OR are needed, especially if they are based on good faith and are backed up with suitable examples. I am not saying all POVs are welcome — I myself have modified analysis which I thought did not quite make sense or get to the nub of the matter, or taken out completely allegations with no basis at all: such as some concerning an ongoing criminal investigation. As regard the issue of Keefer and Maryk, I do believe that my observations are based on good grounds and that some explanation for Keefer's behaviour in particular is needed: why does he scheme against Queeg and turn the essentially decent Maryk into a mutineer? If mine is not good enough, then would you please explain it.--Marktreut (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot sections are for straight-forward presentations of what happens in the film. If you see it happen, that it can go into the plot synopsis. Descriptions of time, place, setting etc. are legit. Analysis of the motivation of the characters, unless supported by the dialogue, shouldn't be included. Your assumptions, conclusions and feelings about the film should not be part of the film synopsis. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying, Marktreut, but the OR and POV that does admitedly sometimes stay in certain articles usually does so because it reflects consensus. I believe I indicated on the movie's talk page that I disagreed with at least a portion of your analysis. So now you've got two moderately experienced editors saying that inclusion of your personal analysis is unacceptable. I'm not saying my analysis is correct, I'm saying it's not up to us to say what is correct. Go and find some film experts who share your viewpoint and quote them, but do not inject your own POV into the article. It's really quite simple. Unschool (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

Your ideas on tags are wrong. They must be left prominently at the top of articles or at the top of relevent sections, so that editors will fix the articles AND so that casual readers will know that there is something wrong with the article, and also so that casual readers will realize the extent of the flaws in Wikipedia. Do not remove or move any more article tags. Thanks! --Afed (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As you command, master. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research may be all we have

To take the subject of our discussion further, I am raising the point of OR on the WP:NOR discussion page, under the tile "But OR may be all we have". It is time we found some kind of compromise over this. Cheers,--Marktreut (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually opposed to "original research" per se -- I think many Wikipedians carry their objections to it to absurd lengths. It's the specific instance of the plot synopsis where I object to material which is non-factual. If you were to write up a character analysis section, I might disagree with your conclusions, and want them removed for that reason, but not because they were "original research". I have long said that observation (i.e. I see or hear something, and then describe what I've seen or heard) is not OR, and to consider it as such (which many do), is ridiculou --, but drawing conclusions about motivation is not observation, it goes a level further. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)\

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oscar Levant.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oscar Levant.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please review the civility policy. Words like "fucking" and "dick" are always unhelpful and should never be used. DrKiernan (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And the phrase "as time goes by" shouldn't be used in an article about Casblanca except in the context of describing the song featured in the movie. It's cleverness for it's own sake and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. (BTW, in case you're interested, "clever dick" has nothing to do with penises, and is not uncivil.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No-one likes being called a dick. Use of the term is likely to cause offence, regardless of your intention. I recommend avoiding it in future. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone a dick, I said the writing I reverted was "clever dick writing" -- that's something else entirely. Please stop trying to churn up some sort of issue here that doesn't exist. The only relevant matter is whether using "as time goes by" in an article about Casablanca is a good idea, and it isn't. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)