User talk:WillOakland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User:WillOakland in popular culture

Please take more care in removing sections. Per WP:Trivia, these sections are discouraged, but not forbidden. The consensus is generally to work the information into the main article and not simply remove it. These could be seen as vandalism, but I don't think that's the case. (Although, based on your talk page header, I'm betting you've been templated before about this?) I'm rolling back several of these changes so that WikiEditors may have the opportunity to incorporate some of the information. Please feel free to become involved in these improvements through consensus-building and collaboration rather than unilateral blanking of page content, even if imperfect content. Have a great day otherwise! VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

I'm removing sections that have been tagged for quite some time without being cleaned up. If someone wants to volunteer, they can get the text from the history. WillOakland (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no time limits. I just incorporated a trivia section in an article on a topic of which I know nothing about. It's easy to go around with the scalpel and excise every lump you see, but actual surgery, where you fix something instead of just removing something, requires effort, and care. If you care, I would think you'd be more inclined to do surgery rather than cutting. Take a look at the one I undid and then incorporated. Perhaps you could do the same on articles you think need their trivia sections removed. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (Also remember, "discouraged", but nothing about mandatory removal, no matter how long they are tagged.)
I am using discretion, although it might not be obvious. Saying that Wikipedia has no time limits is tantamount to saying that it has no goals, such as making a decent encyclopedia. WillOakland (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, discretion was not obvious (considering one article only had that section for a few minutes and the tag itself was undated). Still, there is nothing in policy that says we cannot have trivia sections. I do not like them either, but the information is most often of general interest and adds to the article, causing a formatting and sectioning problem more than an extraneous content problem. Hence the "discouraged" policy. Deleting entire sections wholesale is just... borderline. That's all. We need more people editing, not more people deleting. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not hold to the view, apparently so widespread, that every fact added to an article is "special" and must be kept at all costs. WillOakland (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No one is advocating blindly keeping material that is inappropriate. The purpose of WP:TRIVIA is not however to blank these sections, (in fact, the guidelines specifically state this,) but to convert them to prose. Certainly you do not have to use every example deposited into these sections, but wholesale deletion of these sections is throwing the baby out with the bath water. -- RoninBK T C 08:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a sad reality that Wikipedia is full of trivia lists that have no redeeming content whatsoever. These sections (and the separate articles they are foolishly spun into) make Wikipedia a laughing stock. Shouldn't something be done about it? WillOakland (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. As I just said, clean up what you can, and convert the rest to prose. Don't just blank though. That's something you can do about it -- RoninBK T C 09:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to go through a list of incidental references and look for one to keep as a token gesture. WillOakland (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not really looking for one to keep as a token gesture. Some facts in the trivia sections are just not in the right section, or are important enough to include. This shows what needs to be done with trivia sections, not to be deleted, but incorporating the important facts into the rest of the article and removing "trash" facts like the one included on your link above (the laughing stock one). Trivia sections just need a little work, but can be resorted into other sections with a little thought. SpencerT♦C 14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, "pop culture" sections are not necessarily subject to the same recommendations as "trivia" sections -- the popular culture influence of a given subject may constitute a valid stand-alone subtopic.--Father Goose (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you know full well that "in popular culture" is widely used as a fig-leaf for trivia. WillOakland (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Not always. But I'm inclined to belive you've had this conversation with others before, possibly even with me.--Father Goose (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
How exactly should such lists be discussed? Item by item? Is an article doomed to carry a trivia list forever once it reaches a certain length, due to the amount of discussion that would be needed to clean it up? WillOakland (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, item by item could be a tedious task. For a long list, why not drop in a trivia tag, remove the most obviously/indisputable poor quality additions, incorporate into prose some you think are notable, and then in the edit summary and/or talk page propose the rest be removed. Wait a week, and see what response you get. If someone reverts your removals, then post it on talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. In fact I am trying to incorporate the old trivia throughout the article in a proper way even now. I think what scared me was the loss of the information completely but I do see your point. UB65 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

rg trivia intervention for Wikipedia I mean UB65 (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My 2 cents...

Hi Will. You can see my more detailed comments on the ANI discussion, but essentially I agree with you that pop culture and trivia lists are problematic and should be removed. Just try and get people on side when you work to improve things, and also, remember that some of the info in the trivia lists may actually be quite significant and should be incorporated into the main article somehow. Also, watch out for new additions and calmly decide if they need removal or incorporation into the main prose - new additions are likely to me easier to manage than long standing lists. Drop me a message any time if need be.

It's a tough job dealing with these sections properly - it'd be great to see more people doing so - good to see that at least you are interested! kind regards and happy editing. --Merbabu (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a broom

Jack's very-own Broomstar
Awarded for inspiring efforts at clearing out the trash.

—Jack Merridew 11:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cunt

I have reverted your changes to this article pending discussion on its talk page. Surgery is fine; butchery isn't, without consensus. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing

Warning - Please do not conduct disruptive edits as an "intervention" to Wikipedia[1]. We have been through this a number of times before. It is against the guidelines to unilaterally remove popular culture sections, and with good reason. If you disagree with policies or guidelines your best bet is to participate in the policy discussion, but please do not take it upon yourself to make widespread contentious edits. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Arnaldo Lerma. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a source for that. Cirt (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please restore the popular culture refs

I think the references to popular culture are quite interesting and relevant in terms of background on the overall stunt of fart lighting. I suggest reverting the "popular culture" section from [2]. There's not much scholarly or academic discussion of fart lighting, so popular culture is the best reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 08:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously they are "relevant" but regardless of how interesting you find them, it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article to catalog every occurrence, or even many occurrences, of toilet humor. The article outside of the trivia list is surprisingly well written considering the subject, and I think it stands just fine by itself. WillOakland (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Trivia

If people go around reverting any attempt to remove silly trivia, then how exactly is trivia being "discouraged"? WillOakland 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you take up the issue on WT:TRIV. In the mean time, it is your POV about what is silly and what is not. Feel free to discuss on an article's talk page about which trivia items should be deleted. But do not unilaterally decide to make blanket deletions of trivia sections. That is contrary to WP:CON and WP:OWN. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing to take up at WP:TRIV. It says trivia sections are discouraged. I take that to mean something. WillOakland (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Read my comment again. It's WT:TRIV. It's a talk page about WP:TRIVIA. Ward3001 (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and 3RR on Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon‎

You have violated the three-revert rule, which prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, I haven't. WillOakland (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You reverted here (and don't say the first edit is not a revert; read Help:Reverting: "In the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined more broadly as the undoing of another editor's work"; your edit undid another editor's work); here, here, and here. That's four reverts in less than 24 hours. Cease edit warring. Discuss changes on the talk page. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The first edit was not a revert. WillOakland (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK. If you insist, we'll let an administrator decide. I'm making a 3RR report. Ward3001 (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What rubbish. WillOakland (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia sections

I have invited comments here. Meanwhile, the next step would be a more formal request for comment. Call me optimistic, but I've always believed that Wikipedia has no place for one-man bands, however well-intentioned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever look at Recent Changes? Wikipedia has plenty of "one-man bands." WillOakland (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Recent Changes" is hardly the place to look for how things should be done on Wikipedia. Instead, look at article talk pages, where actual discussion occurs rather than one person assuming he is in charge. Ward3001 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis V. Gerstner, Jr

Please stop removing KBE from the name in Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., consider the directions in WP:MOS under ["Honorific Prefixes"] it clearly states WP:NCNT is only for use in article titles not in the text of the article, as is quoted below for easy reference:

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) for their use in article titles.

Silent52 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so...
Honorary titles should not be used at all, but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article. Thus, Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens, as their use outside a Commonwealth context are rare.
WillOakland (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Precisely, in WP:NCNT it clearly states the article title, not the opening text, it is stating not to name the article Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.KBE but instead to state it in the text, this is clearly explained in both WP:NCNT and WP:MOS. This is also clearly demonstrated by the linked article in WP:NCNT, which as you can see lists his name with his KBE afterwards. Silent52 (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
READ ALL OF THE WORDS, PLEASE. WillOakland (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, going by the section that deals with post nominals it states this:
The article itself should clarify details such as the full title, etc.
How is that ambiguous, WP:NCNT only applies to article titles not the text contained therein, READ WP:MOS IT CLEARLY EXPLAINS THIS Silent52 (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gerstner article does clarify by saying that he received the award. Good grief, I honestly don't give a whup about Gerstner, but I don't intend to see KBE titles dropped in every article about an American who has received the knighthood. Outside the commonwealth, it is just another award, hard as that might be for you to accept. WillOakland (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I don't want you to think i hold the OBE/KBE/etc in any regard they're a political list that's not actually decided upon by the queen, knights of the garter i do respect. The problem here is that the directions are that an post nominals are clarified and added to the name in the text, it doesn't matter where they live, it just says not to use it for the main article title outside of the commonwealth Silent52 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what it says. You've got some kind of communication breakdown. WillOakland (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we're going to have to ask for someone elses opinion on this Silent52 (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, i do genuinely like the comedy on the article now, i can't see anyone else keeping it, rofl Silent52 (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bridge (Scientology film)

Thanks for expanding the plot summary. Cirt (talk) 08:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Profit

I would like to try for WP:GA status on this article at some point in the future, and you are jeopardizing that by adding back in dubiously sourced information. Please remove it, unless you can back up this info with a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source. Otherwise it is a blatant violation of WP:OR and will most certainly fail a WP:GAC review. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Hoover edit

Thank you for correcting this edit but please remember the purpose of edit summaries which are not where we call people idiots. Please remain WP:CIVIL and avoid commentary in edit summaries. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMAO

I was wondering if you had commented in the discussion page of IMAO before removing it, for instance, I was wondering if you could prove that the page as presented was spam. 5minutes (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a link to an external site on a disambiguation page, I didn't discuss it, and I didn't have to. Make an article about IMAO if it's so important. WillOakland (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't have to, no, but considering that this has been a long-standing problem, discussion of the topic among the user community seems pertinent. There are thousands of examples around Wikipedia where there are external links used, and given that the majority of removals of the IMAO blog - including the removal of the page for little more than political reasons, it would seem reasonable to at least check with other users before jumping ahead of yourself. 5minutes (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contents info

Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography

Generally, it is best to stick to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, and yes, even for the contents section of the book. In this manner we can source descriptive material of the contents of the book to secondary sources. Primary source citations can be used, but I would prefer that they be used very, very sparingly. If overused, relying too heavily on primary sources could open the door to POV interpretations of the primary source, which is definitely something that could draw concerns at a potential future WP:GA review and/or WP:FAC discussion and review. So that is why I would please prefer to rely on secondary sources, and not primary. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you are taking it too far. The book has a verifiable existence independent of the aspects the press has chosen to focus on. WillOakland (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because overreliance on the book itself, in the article about the book, will introduce POV interpretations. Do you wish to get POV into the article, and hurt the article's chances from ever getting higher in quality status, or would you like to help work towards a NPOV, well-sourced article about the book and events surrounding it? Please help me to do the latter, I would hate for past efforts on that article to be marred by introduction of POV through reliance on a primary source. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there is a POV problem, then state it. I happen to believe that ignoring (and denying the existence of) apsects of the book the press has chosen not to emphasize is a very serious POV issue. WillOakland (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Example

For example this edit where you add info and cite "Morton, pp. 43-323" ?? You are citing two-hundred and eighty pages as the basis for this information?? Can you begin to understand here how this type of practice is not best, and will hurt the article's chances for quality improvement? Cirt (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what you get for requesting a citation of something so damn obvious. WillOakland (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, what? Please respond more politely, per WP:CIVIL. Thanks. And please explain how you feel that citing a page range of two-hundred and eighty pages is truly the best practice here. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the best practice. It's what you asked for. WillOakland (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a page number for a specific fact, then cite that. If you can cite a secondary source, that is preferable. But it is highly inappropriate to cite a page range of two-hundred and eighty pages. Would you rather we removed all secondary source citations from the article, and just rewrote the entire article from scratch, and just source the article about the book to the book itself as a reference? Cirt (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like the article to give an accurate description of the book, without being hamstrung by extreme skepticism. This is not some secret Scientology internal document, and it shouldn't be approached like one. Nor is there any BLP issue in accurately stating what the book says. WillOakland (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • WillOakland, the fact is that the material you have inserted, which regards the contents of the book, probably needs to be cited in accordance with Wikipedia policy. To be honest, I'm not sure why you are making that so hard, especially as it seems to me that you have the book on hand. Instead of being difficult and running around in circles with Cirt here, please use your book usefully and cite the material you have added. Also, please, in future interaction with Cirt, or, indeed, anyone else here on Wikipedia, try to remain civil and remain cool. If you feel your temperature rising, consider taking a break and coming back later to deal with an issue at hand. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The book discusses various matters at length and at Cirt's request, I cited them at length. The problem here is that Cirt decided, amidst the press attention the book received before its release, that descriptions of its contents were unverifiable or disputable, and now refuses to change that position when anyone in the US and Canada can get the book at a store or library. This is a position that seems to apply in no other articles about publicly available literary works, including other Scientology-related works. WillOakland (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)