User talk:Thivierr/archive-4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Endurance - external links or references?

I saw you added three external links to the Endurance (TV series) article. Are they just pointers for further reading, or did you use them as a source for last names, etc.? If it's the latter, it might make sense to put them in a References section. Great cleanup, though—and good catch on the Wayne Williams name collision! C.Fred 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I moved the two the links up. IMDB and kidzworld seem (i hope) to be reliable sources for what they're used for (kidzworld had the last names). TV.com seems not to be to reliable, and the show itself should back up what's in the article, but but isn't impartial. Hopefully, any fact checker will look at all four links, but I like to use "External links" not only for "further reading" but as a way of saying "this isn't quite a reliable source". I'm probably not making much sense. Anyhow, take a look if you wish. --Rob 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1903 in organized crime

In this edit you say "sources listed". What sources and where? I'm sorry if I missed something, but I don't know what you are referring to. Also, I'm not sure why you reverted back to a version which linked to a disambig page "William Flynn". I removed it again. If you return it, could you please put in a citation, and also disambiguate the link. Thanks.

The sources are listed on the timeline's main page. Until I can verify his middle initial, I'll list his name on the disambig page as William Flynn (detective). In the future if you feel there is an issue regarding verification or other inaccuracies, could you please notify me on my talk page instead of simply reverting it ? While Google itself can be a useful tool, it is by no means the final word on verifing articles (as the vast majority of my contributions retun few, if any, links. MadMax 20:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. I will look for sources in the following places, in this order:

1. An inline citation of some sort, close to where the claim is made
2. Anywhere in the article (but not the "main" article, as there are no such thing as "sub" and "main" articles anymore)
3. If it's about a person (as in this case), I'll follow the link to their bio article (not an option here), and look in there to see if there is a mention of it in the article, and some sort of external source there. I'll also follow any other internal links, to look for external references mentioned in them.
4. I'll then do a google, to see if I can find anything on this
5. If I think there's a good chance its verifiable and/or its critical to an article, I'll leave a message on the *article's* talk page before removing it. Otherwise, I'll remove it right away.

But, I'm not going to fishing through history, to contact all past editors, about something. It's the responsibility of those adding information to cite sources. I have no way of knowing something is sourced somewhere else. Also, before making a redlink to William Flynn (detective), have you confirmed this isn't William J. Flynn who was also a secret service agent during this era? --Rob 20:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I am the only major editor of this project (as anyone looking in any of the pages histories would see). I have no wish to become involved in an edit war, however I'm not aware of any official policy regarding listing sources on each individual entry, never mind on the article itself. I'm more then happy to list sources and provide any other information necessary to verify an article. However, as it is the responsibility of editors to provide sources if they are able, so is it the responsibility for editors to contact either the last author or the creator of the page before making major changes to a page. As far as I am aware, low google hits do not officially qualify as the final word on verifying an article. I don't expect a great deal of assistance on this project, however I would appreciate if you would bring any further changes to me first before simply reverting any page that doesn't receive a suitable amounts of Google hits. The red link itself is a temporary one until I can verify if the investigator was indeed William J. Flynn. MadMax 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Added: I should mention, that non-online references are just fine with me, and I don't object to paper sources. But, if you're going to use them, you have the same obligation to state explicitly and specifically where you got the material. That means more then just giving a list of books. It means all the info about the book needed to find it, plus the specific page number(s) where the information for the specific fact is. This is particularly the case when you mention somebody making a contentious and debateable quotation. Right now, there's no information for me to know where to check which "William Flynn" you were referring to. It's rather a signficant point, that's been left out (whether it was the one who went on to run the FBI, or just some nearly anonymous low-level investigator). --Rob 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I have no issue with providing sources, as all my articles provide both direct and indirect sources. While I generally try to follow the MLA format, Wikipedia policy (again as far I am am aware) requires only the book (which itself can be verified). There is a huge difference between articles and timelines regarding listing sources. If you feel timelines should provide sources (including for statements), feel free to bring the issue up with the administrators themselves. MadMax 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would respectfully ask you to view Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoidance. Unless you would like to refer this to Dispute resolution, please do not revert aricles without bringing it to my attention. If you feel a citation belongs there, I will more more then happy to fix it. I ask you however to not revert the page again, until this issue is resolved. MadMax 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're under the mistaken impression this article is somehow "owned" by you. No editor needs to consult with you specifically before editing it. There are many articles for which I'm the only editor of, but I never ask people to talk to me before editing. You're welcome to change anything I've done, without prior notice. You have no special relationship to this article, and your views, while welcomed, are no more or less then those of any other editor. Now, all editors, including me and you, should discuss the relevant issues at Talk:1903 in organized crime. We're both at our 3RR limit, so I suggest waiting, and seeing if others wish to participate. If you add back the item, I won't be the first person to remove it. However, if the article remains unsourced I will add the appropriate tag to garner notice to the problem. --Rob 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yamla has been nominated

Hello. Please note that I have recently nominated Yamla (talk · contribs) for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yamla. If you would review this editor's contributions and leave feedback on his nomination page it would be greatly appreciated. P.S.: My leave of absence has been extended until the end of March, should you change your mind before that time.  ;-) Best regards, Hall Monitor 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please refrain from speculating about my motivations for nominating a type of behavior for vandalism. I'm not sure what makes you believe you have superior insights about this compared to me, but this tendency to revert is inappropriate. --Leifern 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to "nominating a type of behavior for vandalism", do so on the talk page, not a policy page. As that was a policy page, reverting is the norm, not the exception. Only changes that have a clear consensus may be made. Any change done without consensus, will be promptly reverted. --Rob 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That was not the basis for your reversion - you disagreed with the nomination. You then reverted without discussing, then projected motivations on me. You then tried to start a revert war, and then continued to speculate about my motivations. --Leifern 21:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see no consensus on "hoax" as a type of vandalism, either. I happen to agree that it is, but by your standards, it does not belong on the page. --Leifern 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, its well accepted as a vandalism, by consensus. The page is a codification of established consensus, not a place to propose things you hope will get consensus. If you object to my change, you may remove it entirely from the page, and we'll discuss it on the talk page. That of course, is an example, where removing a section is entirely ok. --Rob 22:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus isn't something that emerges from thin air - you have to be able to discern it by opinions that a reasonable cross-section expresses, ideally by vote. As I said, I can find no basis for a consensus for the hoax point. I'm not going to delete it to make a point, but when you request that an additional category of vandalism should be proposed on the talk page and then accepted through consensus, it's clearly a standard you only partially applies to yourself. --Leifern 22:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Both your change, and my change, will now be discussed on the talk page. They can be added back when a consensus emerges. --Rob 22:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of greatest Jeopardy! champions AFD

Just so you know, I've added the article you voted to redirect to to the AFD, as it's equally pointless. See my reasoning there. I don't know if that will affact your vote. -R. fiend 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take I look. --Rob 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Would you look at HHS again. I'm pretty sure everything is factual. CN

Thanks, it looks better. --Rob 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genius Home Collegiate School (2nd nomination)

I'm sorry, what do you feel insulted about? The message was clearly implying a distaste for people who constantly vote to "keep all schools", regardless of other factors, including (but not limited to) verifiability. If anything, I think people like you should be given a medal for using your heads and not your hearts when it comes to touchy issues like this -- the irrational crusade against schools in the past has led to an irrational crusade to keeping all schools today, regardless of other factors. Johnleemk | Talk 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Holly_McPeak.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Holly_McPeak.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 10:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Josie_and_the_Pussycats.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Josie_and_the_Pussycats.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 10:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Deborah Gibson Head Shot.JPG listed for deletion

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Josie_and_the_Pussycats.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Josie_and_the_Pussycats.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 06:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pghbridges.com

It is looking to me like this article is not going to make it (win some, lose some I guess, I got 5 articles to DYK main page, so having one not survive AfD isn't the end of the world). With the refactoring, you have no comment on the main, non talk page, but I would appreciate your support on the main page for a move to projectspace if you don't think keep is warranted. Thanks for your thoughtful comments so far and consideration of my suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I voted to move it to project space. BTW, I have quite different reasoning than others. I think you proved the case of the signficance/value of the site. I think its "notable enough". But, I just don't think we can make a good article for our readers, as there's not adequate verifiable information on it, beyond its existence, and a breif statment of what it does. Generally, I go much more based on verifiable, NPOV information, than anything else. In article space, anything that's not independently verifiable and neutral has to be removed. In project space, you're free to provide whatever useful information and opinion is appropriate. --Rob 21:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Doodlebops.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Doodlebops.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --OrphanBot 10:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Doodlebops.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Doodlebops.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.