User talk:Guy1890/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Guy1890. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Any opinion?
Have you seen THIS? Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Without even going to the link that you provide above, I think I have seen this proposal in recent days. The lack of BEFORE at AfD has been very apparent (and not just in the realm of pornography-related articles either) by a certain few users recently. It's also been pretty obvious that some of these types of nominations were likely coming from previously-banned & now returning editors, socks, "bad-hands", etc.. What hasn't been immediately obvious to me is who exactly these editors are. I don't have enough experience with spoon-feeding diffs to our checkuser corps to explore these issues effectively, and I don't yet have enough hard evidence to make any serious, specific charges, yet. Guy1890 (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- In addition, these kind of AfD nomination stats are absolutely horrible. To be fair, his overall AfD stats are at least slightly better, but not that great either. A less than a third of all edits being in article mainspace is also pretty bad. Even accounting for this specific user being one that's likely returned under a new ID, I can't imagine participating almost exclusively at AfD (almost 200 times!) with little to no real article improvement edits under one's belt...whew... Guy1890 (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Quite sad that the only way for him to feel like he's "contributing" is to remove the work of others. Personally, I fee the only way to contribute IS to actually build, and improve... but that's me. I can hope that he might one day gain a clue about what it means to build an encyclopedia. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- The scary part to me is that they (the anti-porn crowd) are getting more blatant. SqueakBox is another example and he included himself as a member of the Porn Project. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that its OK to have an opinion or discussion about porn articles without a simple comment on the Project page and to pass judgement in just as cavalier of a manner. What other project is disrespected as badly or extensively as this? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've found that it's definitely easier to build upon the work of others than to start articles from scratch yourself. The idea that large numbers of people would want to spend thread after thread after thread arguing about what should be removed from an encyclopedia that only exists in cyberspace has always been perplexing to me. An encyclopedia that includes "free access to the sum of all human knowledge" is going to be very, very large (not smaller & smaller over time) and cover as wide a range of topics as possible (not only a select few topics).
- To be fair to "Squeak" (who had quite an extensive & storied block history before this last year's shenanigans), he apparently was historically a member of the Wikipedia Pornography Project pretty much as an excuse to be extremely anti-pedophilia on Wikipedia, which isn't the absolute worse POV to have on here IMO. There also aren't that many truly active members of the Pornography Project at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, if that was Squeaks original intention, more power to him! As for active members, I've thought about that. I wonder what it would take to get one or two researchers or more "clinical" people involved. I've listed a few as resources on the Project page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The scary part to me is that they (the anti-porn crowd) are getting more blatant. SqueakBox is another example and he included himself as a member of the Porn Project. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that its OK to have an opinion or discussion about porn articles without a simple comment on the Project page and to pass judgement in just as cavalier of a manner. What other project is disrespected as badly or extensively as this? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
SqueakBox at AN/I
Thank you for alerting me to SqueakBox's involvement in BLP/porn disputes. The edit in itself struck me as extremely contentious, and with the background of bickering, this is not something I believe I should tackle on my own. I've made a post about it at AN/I[1] if you're interested. Peter Isotalo 11:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- To be clear, I originally made an entry on your talk page after seeing both the tone (your surprise) of your revert edit summaries on this article here and seeing your initial query on "Squeak"'s talk page at 12:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC). I personally loathe AN/I (since I strongly feel like it tends to suck the soul out of Wikipedia editors, including me), and I don't know now that I would have contacted you had I known that you would have taken this issue there. The last time that "Squeak"'s edits in this area were reviewed a few months ago at AN/I, while there was pretty clear consensus for some kind of sanction against him...nothing happened because a fellow anti-porn editor (administrator really) closed that discussion. I tend to have little confidence in AN/I to fairly resolve these kind of disputes in this subject area (pornography). Also, in general, I've found that the less that is said at AN/I...the better...belaboring points at length just tends to get those points to not be read by the admins. In any event, good luck...I don't think that me commenting there would appropriate at this time due to any "canvassing" concerns. Guy1890 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
AVN awards
Looks like you've been busy, are these basically "OK" again? Seems like quite a few people are reviewing Squeaks contribution history. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've been busy with work & family very recently, so haven't checked things very recently, but, as of the other day, the 27th & 29th AVN Awards pages looked pretty good to me, and I think that there's been some more recent work done on the 28th & 30th AVN Awards pages as well. I also haven't checked much of "Squeak"'s edits earlier than around December 29th, but, as you say above, I think that a bunch of other people have been combing through his edits to look for & possible reverse some bad faith edits. I also haven't read the latest at AN/I, but I think he's been topic banned for the time being at least. IMO, he's been basically spoiling to become a martyr on these "issues", so I guess that he finally got his wish? Who knows...there might be some serious competence issues there as well... Guy1890 (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, its kind of sad to me. I thought he had chosen to be productive and communicate first about legitimate concerns, but it seems like he was biding his time before the "next censorship salvo". Plus we still have his buddy, HW, to worry about.
- BTW, with regard to the awards, I'm thinking about revisiting the WP:PORNBIO issue with regard to Nominations. You probably realized this a long time ago, but it seems fairly biased (almost to point of being bigoted) there we make awards a Notability condition at all for porn actors when mainstream actors have no such requirement in addition to the fact that its far, far easier for them to get press. If mainstream actors had similar standards to meet, there would be dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles that could be put up for AfD. Your thoughts? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia will really be better off without the likes of "Squeak"...I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. He's taken his sweet time carefully making his bed...now he can lie in it. IMO, Wikipedia has long needed to deal more effectively with habitually & intentionally disruptive editors. Mr. Wolfowitz will likely get what's coming to him in the end at some point in the future. I don't worry about him anymore...he's well-known in many circles of Wikipedia at this late date.
- "If mainstream actors had similar standards to meet, there would be dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles that could be put up for AfD"...and that's the whole point in the first place. Making guidelines like PORNBIO "more strict" gets you less Wikipedia biographical articles that are related to pornography, period.
- I think it'd be a big mistake to try & re-open a serious debate about PORNBIO at this late date. As far as I can tell, that guideline has only been tightened as the years have gone by...mostly because there has been at least a general feeling on the part of some on Wikipedia that Wikipedia's coverage of pornography-related topics is "too broad" or that there are "too many" pornography-related articles on Wikipedia. There are already two discussions ongoing about PORNBIO, and, while one of them is almost certainly going to go nowhere, the other one may (in my guesstimate) eventually come close to removing PORNBIO#3 in its entirety, which may not have as huge an impact (since it's very similar to a GNG-type guideline) than the previous removal of adult industry award nominations.
- In any event, one's best bet at re-examining the current award nomination restriction is coming up with as many examples as one can of articles that were deleted from Wikipedia because of an apparent lack of notability at the time (due to the subject only having nominations or certain types of nominations under their belt) that now appear to pass a more general, GNG-type guideline. There are still forces out there that want PORNBIO gone in its entirely that we need to be concerned about. Guy1890 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, all points taken and understood. My thoughts about Notability and how to approach PORNBIO is to start with the Mainstream articles first. There are scores of mainstream actor and actress articles that would seem to be far less notable than many Porn performer articles, but exist simply because they are about Mainstream people. If we start with this approach, compiling a possible deletion list of Mainstream performers using PORNBIO guidelines, those that are against it can't do so without some kind of admission of a bias towards Porn. What do you think? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- If you're talking about taking more mainstream performers to AfD to try & prove a point, I don't think that's a great idea either. I don't have as much experience with the various notability guidelines that apply in those genres, but I would guess offhand that a lot more of those type of performers get more mainstream press coverage (albeit some from tabloids which might not mean that much) that would make a GNG keep argument easier to make. I think that many of the anti-porn crowd on Wikipedia are pretty open about how & why they are anti-porn (showing their biases right upfront) so I dunno that shaming them will have any effect on them. Guy1890 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, all points taken and understood. My thoughts about Notability and how to approach PORNBIO is to start with the Mainstream articles first. There are scores of mainstream actor and actress articles that would seem to be far less notable than many Porn performer articles, but exist simply because they are about Mainstream people. If we start with this approach, compiling a possible deletion list of Mainstream performers using PORNBIO guidelines, those that are against it can't do so without some kind of admission of a bias towards Porn. What do you think? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, no, I'm not suggesting a "reverse Squeakbox attack" at all. Just compiling a list to make a case. And this is not about shaming either, just getting people to "put up or shut up". Being weaselly about it on a Talk page is one thing, but under the scrutiny of a Noticeboard is something else. That's what it took (twice, mind you) just with Squeak. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi .. I just finished adding to the 32nd AVN Awards page (I'm the original creator of the 31st, 30th, 29th, 28th and 27th awards pages). I really appreciate the work you did fixing the mess that was recently made of the 31st awards page, and also all the work you and Scalhotrod did on the new 32nd awards page. I'd like to make a suggestion and hear what both of you have to say.
On the other award years that I created, I only listed all the nominees for awards that were actually handed out at the show, on the assumption that if AVN doesn't deem them important enough to hand out during the show, then they're not major awards (most get handed out either before or after the actual ceremony). The 32nd awards page presently has all of the nominees (except the fan awards, I think). That took a ton of work! How do you feel about eliminating the nominees (after the awards show) for categories that weren't presented at the show? (We'd still list the winners though, and nominees for the categories that were part of the show.) Personally, I like having all the nominees there, but I've had to fix so much vandalism to the other five years' worth of pages that if this page gets vandalized like the 31st awards were, it would be horrendous to fix (and unfortunately, based on past experience, I expect it'll happen much too often!). And I'm not sure how many people care about things like who was nominated in manufacturer categories, for example. But I'm happy to go along with what you two think, especially since you did all the work. I also don't want to delete a bunch of nominees and have you folks think it's more vandalism, when all I wanted to do was shorten the page a bit and make it a bit easier to unvandalize!
One other thing I might ask: In the other years awards pages, I made almost no references to the company names (except in the company categories). One of the early crticisms I had was someone saying with all of them there, it's too much like a promo for these companies. I think that's likely true — the Oscars pages, for example, make no mention of whether Fox or MGM or whoever created "Grand Budapest Hotel", for example. I'm sure the industry really wants them there, but I kind of wonder if the Wikipedia users care — I suspect they don't and would probably prefer a cleaner page. But I'm interested in hearing what you two think. Thanks again for all your work! -- Pumik9 (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- "I only listed all the nominees for awards that were actually handed out at the show"...I don't have a problem with that, since adult film award nominations don't count anymore towards notability on Wikipedia. "I'm not sure how many people care about things like who was nominated in manufacturer categories"...I'm also not sure what the notability standards are for companies on Wikipedia and specifically whether award nominations for companies would make them notable or not.
- There is likely at least a small issue with potential promotion for certain companies in the adult film industry, which is why I pretty much stopped Wiki-linking to those companies when mentioning the details for an individual's awards a long while ago. The actual AVN Awards website citations do mention the names of companies for some reason, so I never really had a problem at least mentioning who made the film (and Wiki-linking to that film only, if possible) that an award was derived from. Guy1890 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Great, I'm glad we're thinking alike, and Scalhotrod seems to be in agreement as well. When I had created the pages for the 27th to 31st awards years, I specifically made them almost identical to the corresponding years for the Oscars pages, specifically to wipe out arguments from the vandalism crowd, because if they disagree with something on the AVN Awards page they must disagree with the same thing on the Oscars page. I've found that to be kind of helpful in getting rid of arguments from a couple of them. Let's leave all the nominees there for now, though, and hope people don't vandalize the page. Then next weekend I should have time to re-format it a bit (knocking out a bunch of the lesser nominees) and add the winners (unless you or Scalhotrod beat me to it)! I do agree with you that there are probably some notable companies that should be added, but personally, before that I'd like to add more of the major movies to Wikipedia; I find a lot of the notable movies are missing. Thanks again for all your work! -- Pumik9 (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Lightning in a tropical cyclone
I've closed the longstanding RFD for Lightning in a tropical cyclone as no consensus with an unusually detailed rationale. Basically, nobody wanted to keep it, but there wasn't consensus on what to do, so I've taken a bold step of un-redirecting it and immediately sending it to AFD to get input from people who don't often show up at RFD. I'd really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning in a tropical cyclone, where I've given a strong suggestion that people pick between the RFD-favored steps of deletion or retargeting to lightning. I'm attempting to notify everyone who participated in the RFD (that's BDD, Ivanvector, Inks.LWC, Guy1890, Steel1943, and Thryduulf), but if I missed someone, please do the notification for me. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Research Invitation
Hello Wikipedians,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects
Marge6914 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)