User talk:Jeffq 2006b

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Comments vandalism

Please be careful about what you call "vandalism" (or should I say "vandalidm"? ☺). The obviously well-intentioned spelling corrections at Talk:Veronica Mars by Slipperyweasel for several editors may have been gauche, but it is not vandalism, even if everything else Slipperyweasel had done were blatant vandalism. (Indeed, I've seen vandals draw conscientious editors into losing arguments over reflexive reversions in just such a manner.) Your reversion of these corrections is understandable based on policy, but applying inflammatory labels for ostensibly innocent actions can lead to unnecessary conflict. Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take editing someone else's comments to be vandalism. It's not something to be altered, and it was. It understand you might see "vandalism" as a negative term, but it's also the correct term. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism--Chris Griswold 19:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the section on "Changing people's comments", please read this section again:

Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user) [emphasis mine]

Correcting someone's spelling has no effect on the meaning whatsoever, and so cannot reasonably be considered to "substantially change their meaning". It only helps the person look more literate than they seem to be, which many people would actually appreciate.

Please also note the following statement in the first paragraphs of the policy article you cite:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. […] Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

This is why I deliberately referred to Slipperyweasel's edit as "well-intentioned" yet arguably "gauche". Please also note the following from Wikipedia:On assuming good faith, which is recommended additional reading:

Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. In other words, when it doubt, consider it a good-faith edit. That means, even if the person is dead wrong, deeply misguided, stubborn, rude, biased, bigoted, and acting against overwhelming consensus, we continue to assume that they are trying to make the encyclopedia better, not worse. As soon as we label someone's edit as "vandalism", we are giving up our assumption of good faith. […] This is why "the V-word" is so touchy here, and it's why we protect the definition of vandalism from increasing its scope, bit by bit.

These considerations are why I took the time to recommend that you do not call something as trivial and obviously NOT bad-faith editing "vandalism", per policy and recommended practice. The "V-word" is negative, as these pages make clear, so it should only be used when the edit cannot be construed as anything but bad-faith editing, and only certain kinds at that.

I am not saying that you shouldn't revert one editor's uninvited spelling corrections to another editor's talk-page postings. I am just saying don't misuse a specifically defined term like "vandalism" to describe any edit that you don't think is a good idea. Saying something like "rv uninvited spelling corrections" in the edit summary avoids the "V-word" while accurately describing the rationale. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont move..

..Comments on a talk page, you make it difficult when the discussion is active. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are often only active for a few days or weeks, but remain to be read for years. It's important for wiki-savvy editors to encourage newbies to (A) sign their postings with datestamps, and (B) use the new-topic (+) tab to start a new discussion in the correct place (a failure especially pernicious due to the popularity of blogs, which frequently use the reverse order), so that the rest of the world reading these discussions can follow the chronological flow and understand the development of content discussions. I only did what more active editors of Talk:Dead Like Me should have done weeks ago, when it wouldn't have been so disruptive. Also, you shouldn't post a comment to someone's talk page about an edit without at least citing the page in question. Finally, an ellipsis is three periods (dots), not two. (You wouldn't happen to be a Pascal programmer, would you? ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know pascal sorry, and to recetify this i intend to archive the discussions except the 2 current active ;-)! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving doesn't solve the flow problem, although it's certainly a good idea, especially now that the discussions are in correct order. (I fixed the remaining order problems after adding some missing timestamps, and also moved a non-sequitur from one topic to its own.) I've added a {{talkheader}} to the talk page to help avoid the situation in the future. (The Pascal reference was a (poor) attempt at computer-nerd humor, alluding to the fact that the Pascal language uses two periods as ellipses.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeff

Thank you for your comments on the article Jim Shapiro. I am astonished at how vigorously a couple admins argued about speedy deletion -- and this one even sourced an article that, as you pointed out, is hardly reliable. I surely am not defending this attorney, but it astonishes me that some are so willing to ignore WIki guidelines when it comes to article on attorneys.jawesq 06:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the urgency about deleting an "attack" page with such squirrely sources. My take is to try to push for proper sources, then worry about possible POV. Without reliable sources, an article can't be justified on WP, even if its information appears to be completely accurate. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unfortunately, the squirrely sources were provided by an admin, who seems to think it is acceptable to have an article for the sole purpose of disparagement. jawesq 07:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Precedent for blanking an AfD?

The following discussion is copied from my posting to User talk:Tony Sidaway, so I can find it more easily for future reference.

I'm not particularly concerned about whether Jim Shapiro merited a full AfD or a speedy deletion, but I'm a bit puzzled about the blanking of an existing AfD, especially since there was some controversy about this issue. Isn't it more appropriate just to post the result near the top, like in any other AfD? After all, this was a content discussion that could be valuable to future editing on this topic, especially as it provided evidence about the questionable nature of the sources. (I myself am wondering whether something meaningful could have been developed out of the New York Lawyer source, but I'm not going to press the issue.) Thanks for any insight. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder about this. I'd love to hear more about this because the choice to blank the AfD is a bit puzzling to me as well. Erechtheus 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly common practice to blank an AfD in which very uncomplimentary things are said about a person or company. The result can be seen in the history. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Tony said. Per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material abut living individuals should be removed from articles and Talk, and by extension from related Project pages. The AfD is moot anyway, so blanking is perfectly reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you both for the explanation. The explanation certainly makes sense. Erechtheus 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Preciate the pointers, guys. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be a lawyer

But you sure write like one. Well done. The recreation (overhaul) of Jim Shapiro on the user's talk page does include two references to local newspapers at the time of the suspension. However, it would not survive an AfD, and is still an 'attack page' even if it would not now meet speedy deletion criteria.jawesq 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Shapiro

I've posted on talk page. I suggest you open an AfD so this can be decided openly through community consensus. Tyrenius 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled about opening an AfD on an article that replaces one whose deletion review isn't yet completed. I guess I'll do this if necessary, but I'm finding it hard to keep up with the rapid pace of developments with just a single channel on this issue. ☹ I wish the involved parties would just let the process run and focus on one thing at a time. Such haste supporting the article strikes me as equally problematic as User:Jgwlaw's anxious efforts to get it removed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I reinstated the CSD tag and was going to delete the new one under CSD but, when I scrutinised the criteria, I realised they don't apply. It would have been better for the editor to have waited, but we have to deal with what's been done and I think in the circumstances AfD is the best way, unless you have a better solution. Tyrenius 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at calling for a better biography of a living person on the article's talk page. We'll see how that goes first. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings

Thanks for the fix! I must have seen that page a million times, but I guess I just didn't notice. Bye, Shinobu 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose Headphone Family

I know that you have don't usually work on Bose related pages but I was hoping that I could get you involved with the discussion here! Thanks :) -- UKPhoenix79 07:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a look at this AfD. I'm afraid the result was not what you wanted. As I mentioned there, I don't believe Wikipedia should include detailed product information, especially when it comes largely from obviously biased sources like the company's brochures. (As a technology consumer, I've learned to be very skeptical even of supposedly neutral magazine writers, who often support products more out of personal feelings and unstated financial ties than any kind of proper analysis.) I happen to agree with you that articles about products like iPod photo, Pioneer BDR-101A, and various Xbox versions are just like Bose Headphone Family, but I think they could all go, frankly. Sorry I wasn't the help you were looking for. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Knew that it was possable but trying to get some help. Thanks anyway :) I personally have done much to try to only state the facts and to avoid marketing material. I would prefer to have people help us improve the article and make it the best that it can be then just remove it entially! I don't see how it will help out Wikipedia by removing one of the most popular item that a company makes! This is an Encyclopedia and as you mentioned the Encyclopedia would include an iPod but it would also include the big names out there like Microsofts Windows 98, Sony Walkman and Apple II. Yet I don't see any reason why it would not talk about the Bose QuietComforts since they were the 1st company to make and market noise cancelling headphones to the public! If it wasnt for them doing this it might have taken another 10 years before anyone came out with Noise Cancelling headphones. Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository for all the worlds information and while it should not become an advertisement it should not be limited and not offer valid information about the evolution of technology that has name recognition and has factual & verifiable information inside of it! Please help us edit the article or reccomend changes instead of removing it completely! -- UKPhoenix79 08:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Bose produced the first noise-cancelling headphones, that would be encyclopedia-worthy, and would earn it (and its original product) some mention in appropriate articles (properly sourced, of course). It does not mean than Bose should have its product lines detailed in Wikipedia. The way to look at it is what historical impact the products have. Any products that come and go on a regular basis (which, as I know well from my own decades of experience in computer and technology sales, is nearly every product and product line) rarely have any historical impact, however much they benefit their manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. Such detail simply isn't the domain of Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for a better understanding of why some information, however true, isn't necessarily desirable here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to WP:CORP a product being listed is valid if one of two criteria are included including published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations So that would have to include [1] [2] [3] [4] or Professional Pilot Magazine (2004 Headset Preference Survey, Dec p 80) where the Aviation Headset X was voted #1 by a consumer survey 4 years in a Row from 2000 to 2004! This was only from a very quick search on the web and I know that I have personally seen many newspaper comments about them and many other Magazine reviews on them... Haven't you? And C|Net does a lot of independent reviews after all. I dont have a subscription to Consumer reports but I would not be surprised if they are there also! -- UKPhoenix79 09:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiro

Jeff, would you mind taking a look at User:Sarah Ewart/drafts and letting me know if I'm going in an okay direction? I don't want to keep working on it if I'm up the creek. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the sources yet, either in your or WAS 4.250's articles, but it looks to me like you've got a much better handle on a proper Wikpedia article. WAS's still has too much of a "poster boy for bad lawyering" feel, and s/he seems to be intent on keeping the article as hostile to the subject as possible. (I'm certainly not defending this vicious opportunist, but I am concerned about an measured, encyclopedic tone per WP:BLP.) Keep up the good work! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Jeff. And for taking the time to look at the article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applying the WP:CORP criteria for products and services

Bose Headphone Family (AfD discussion)

UKPhoenix79 has cited several independently sourced product reviews in magazines, to demonstrate that the products satisfy the WP:CORP criteria for products and services. Please revisit the discussion with an eye to determining whether the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied by these published works (and any others that can be found), and thus whether fixing the article is a matter of cleaning it up using sources other than just the advertising and press releases put out by Bose itself, rather than deleting it. Uncle G 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose Headphone Family#WP:CORP review. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the sort of thing that we like to see at AFD: an argument based upon looking at the sources. Thank you. Uncle G 14:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA

Hi. I'm planning on nominating you for the position of a sysop, it is best to ask the person being nominated before a RfA is created; So just wondering, would you be interested in being a sysop? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. Frankly, I'm of two minds about becoming an en:Wikipedia sysop. Under the "no big deal" model espoused by Jimmy Wales, I believe my contributions to Wikipedia over the past 3 years, both in quantity and type (forgiving, perhaps, an early obsession with song lists), plus my 16 months' experience as a very active en:Wikiquote sysop, would make a good case. On the other hand, the scrutiny and expectations implied by the usual WP:RFA process suggest that my current, relatively low level of activity (making many more suggestions than doing actual editing) might not be encouraging to some of my fellow Wikipedians. I've also made my share of errors, although I try to acknowledge them when they occur.

On the third hand, I take my responsibilities very seriously, however small or large they may be. If I am accepted as a Wikipedia admin, I would plan to spend more time reviewing current WP admin policies before acting on them, in small doses initially. (en:Wikiquote is still operating largely under policies borrowed from an earlier WP, and we don't have the huge community required to fine tune them as quickly and efficiently as WP does. Therefore, it would be incumbent upon me to re-read everything and be cautious until I've done so.)

I'm spelling all this out for two reasons. One, of course, is that it's a useful start to my answering RFA questions. Two, for your sake, is that I'm not sure how much kudos or stigma attaches to the person nominating someone, depending on the outcome. I want you to know that I'm not likely to be a slam-dunk candidate.

Regardless of your decision, I appreciate your vote of confidence in considering me. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you could be a good admin, generally i prefer quality over quantity. Looking at your count + contribs you've contributed a good ammount of quality stuff. If you ever do wish to be a sysop tho, i'd be happy to nominate you. Just give me a *nudge* when you believe your ready ;-)! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

For spotting that OR vanity. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006 Firefly Newsletter

The August 2006 issue of the Firefly WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of Steorn ad

Hi Jeffq. The cost of the Steorn ad could well fit under the title of original research. I'll leave this to you to decide. The number was deduced: 1) The ad appears facing the contents page of the current issue of the Economist. 2) Its a four-colour ad. 3) The current cost of this kind of ad is £85,200. Sony-youth 15:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

At the risk of annoying you with nitpickiness, I'd like to ask that you consider the audience of your edit summaries when you write them. Looking back over the edit history of Steorn, the summary "See Discussion" says nothing meaningful to the reader. In fact, it forces them to hunt for your discussion posting purely by username and date, rather than topic. Speaking as both a frequent editor and history reviewer, I'd suggest something more like "rm peswiki link (see 'Research' discussion)" to help article edit reviews. Thank you for listening (and for your patience with me!). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken however my Discussion edit happened a couple of seconds after the actual edit so determining what the comment related to is very easy to find. You just go to the discussion history. Its how I read everyone elses comments, I don't go trolling through the whole page. --Archeus 05:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at this situation from a newcomer's perspective, from a very specific moment in time, from a very specific point of view. Yes, it's not particularly difficult to do one cross-checking between an article and its talk page. But you're assuming that one has a reason to want to look at your edit. Six months from now, when Sue Editor is trying to find out what happened to the peswiki link, she'll be confronted with a binary search on a thousand versions of this heavily edited article because whoever changed it didn't mention "peswiki" in the summary. (This is only one of many different scenarios I can conjure up from my own daily editing experience.) The phrase "See discussion", from this perspective, is virtually useless, whereas my suggestion is useful now and later, whether Sue is looking for your edits, peswiki edits, or edits related to the "Research" discussion (which may go on for months, and may have many embedded side-discussions that make the chronological flow hard to read).

Of course, in this case, our poor Sue is "lucky". Someone did mention this change on the talk page. (That's not true of maybe 98% of edits, and she can't deduce your edit is in the 2% because she has no way to know this edit is connected to her mission.) She may eventually check the talk page, despite the near-certainty that the link's disappearance was not commented on. But even if she does think to check, maybe that won't work easily because this controversial article now has, say, 3 archives of its very heated discussion over the past half year. If she's really committed (unlike many editors, who will have given up by this time), she may sift through all the archive pages and eventually find the clues that lead her to someone named "Archeus", and then she can cross-check to find the actual edit. But now she's spent 3 minutes instead of the 10 seconds it should have taken to spot a well-summarized edit. If she's like me, making 100+ edits a day, this is a lot of wasted time for a single edit check.

This is why meaningful edit summaries are important. Many new editors (and a good number of old hands as well) don't seem to think about the fact that these content changes and discussions stay around forever. Many experienced editors use the old material to avoid covering old ground, to cite earlier consensuses, and many other routine Wikipedia tasks. All I'm asking is a tiny additional effort when you edit. And it's not an off-the-wall request; meaningful summaries are specifically urged in Wikipedia:Edit summaries. Please consider the larger view. After all, someday you'll be an experienced Wikipedian, and may find yourself spending time explaining the reasons behind policies to newbies, to convince them to help their fellow Wikipedians get more work done more quickly and efficiently. ☺ Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nitpick away on me. :) Can't learn otherwise. Although I think your going to give yourself too much stress trying to get people to sign thier names to comments. ;) --Archeus 13:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks man. Appreciate the links, and the help. Hope I sign this correctly. I will read those links and learn more as I go. Latr Dayz. Oemb1905 16:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks newuser questions

Just a note to say thanks re answers to my questions at newuser questions.

Ngwe 18:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC) i.e. Cclowe[reply]

MST3K

Hey, sorry for linking the articles I'd created on pertinent films to the MST3K list. Thought it would be would be appreciated & avoid double articles but I can tell by your smart-alecky quotes around "fixes" that it wasn't. I'll be sure to submit all further contributions through you since you are apparently the boss of Wikipedia. SIckBoy 03:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you felt that my quoting the word "fixed" was "smart-alecky". I meant it to indicate that you had made a correction that was not in keeping with the established system in List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. To make this clear, I added the text "1st title is MST3K ep, 2nd is IMDb title (both sourced)" to indicate the system, of which you did not appear to be aware, and that this information was sourced, not just added on a whim. (Your own edits clearly were well-intentioned, as you were creating properly titled film articles along with these changes.) The problem comes down to how to deal with the many titles of these films: the original (often not in English), the IMDb title (sometimes not the same as the original), the most common English title (which appears to be what you are using for your new article stubs), and the MST3K episode titles (which often don't quite match up to one or more of the previous).

Of course, I am not the boss of Wikipedia, or even of this article. I simply have a lot more history with it (and Wikipedia), and have researched and discussed this issue to some extent on the talk page. (I would highly recommend that you read the relevant topics there if you haven't already done so.) I'm sure you believe you are just being appropriately snarky in return for my own perceived snarkiness, but I hope that you and I can back off from this unfortunate descent into insults and cooperate to improve the article. Again, I apologize for offending you. I hope that you will join me in trying to avoid reflecting part of a Martin Amis quote that happened to be yesterday's Wikiquote Quote of the Day: "Being inoffensive, and being offended, are now the twin addictions of the culture." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the use of quotes indicated that someone or something was not in keeping w/ an established system. I do understand what you did; as I am not ignorant, but as you stated you have been using Wikipedia longer than I have & perhaps YOU could have referenced the situation differently than your use of the quotes which I did feel was not necessarily offensive; but more indicitive of the general attitude of SOME more experienced Wikipedia users. Instead of HELPING newer users; they are DISMISSIVE. Unfortunately, as with many online communities more experienced users tend to have a perceived ownership of the site, or as is many times the case with this site, the articles (especially if they created them). As such after a period of growth, once veteran users get entrenched, the site will decline, as new users are shunned. In fact, I wrote an article about this very same subject recently (not here, in print). Fear not, just as is the case with the NotLD article; I wil henceforth steer clear of MST3K articles. Here's a paraphrase of an Orwell quote for you: 'All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others'. SIckBoy 04:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy about my use of quotes; it's simply shorthand. Edit summaries must be succinct, so there are many practices (that differ as much as editors themselves differ) that help people be succint. You've made it clear how this can look to someone not familiar with the practice, so I'll come up with a better way.

I do not want you to "steer clear of MST3K articles"; it seems like you can contribute quite a lot to this badly needed effort. But if you are so intent on reading a world of contempt and dismissal into a single quoted word, I can do nothing for you.

If instead, you wish to continue working on MST3K, you are welcome and even encouraged to fight back on any existing practices that you disagree with. Nothing in Wikipedia is static, and anything can benefit from a fresh point of view. If you feel the titles should be the way you edited them, make your case on the talk page. I'll make mine, and hopefully other editors (old and new) will join in the discussion and help us achieve some consensus on this point for this article. I may seem like an 800-pound gorilla sometimes, but I'm just one editor, and I make plenty of mistakes, just like anyone else.

Wikipedia would benefit more from your active disagreement than your departure. Please try to consider the possibility that I am not trying to be snarky, sarcastic, dismissive, or rude, but rather earnestly trying to keep you involved. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hearing me out & responding to my concerns Jeff & I'm sorry for being so sensitive.

Here's my problem; theoretically this scenerio seems likely to me. A Wikipedian whom is a fan of cult movies, but not a fan or perhaps unaware of MST3K, creates an article on the film "Five the Hard Way." An MST3K fan, but not particularly someone interested in the minutae of cult movies, comes along & creates an article about "Sidehackers". Now both you & I know they are the same film, but the casual wikipedia user looking for move info may not. Basically it seems like the two entries would be counterproductive to the goal of Wikipedia. IMHO, the naming convetion could be simple :

1. This is the English version of Wikipedia so English versions of film names should be used whenever possible; of course w/ info on the original release title. 2. The English title used should be the most common title used for the film; i.e. "Ein Toter hing im Netz" is the official release title of a film. Since this is English Wikipedia, we should use an English title. The MOST COMMON English title is "A Corpse Hangs in the Web" , this is the INTERNATIONAL English title so we should use this as this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. It might sound strange to American ears as the movie here is variously known as Body in the Web (USA), Girls of Spider Island (USA) (video title), Horrors of Spider Island (USA) (reissue title), It's Hot in Paradise (USA), The Spider's Web (USA). These titles, along with the original German, should be noted parenthetically. 3. MST3K often seemed to use the title available on their print of the film, so for example the 'list' page should read, IMO "A Corpse Hangs in the Web" (broadcast as Horrors of Spider Island). It may sound convoluted, but I think one of the goals of Wikipedia should be to present info in it's lowest common denominator form. Just my opinion though; like I said. Thanks again for listening Jeff. SIckBoy 17:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with you about title conventions (except I'd lose the word "lowest" in "lowest common denominator", which has an unfortunately loaded meaning outside mathematics that opponents of the practice would be happy to capitalize on). These issues have been discussed at some length at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films), with no clear consensus, but I believe your practice is the most common actually in use here — when people get around to "fixing" initial article creations. (There I go again — here I'm saying "fixing" because it is debatable whether such a change is a proper correction, even though I believe it is. I try hard not to assume I know the "right" answer, but I don't always succeed.) I've just summarized this practice for the sake of another editor at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)#Determining the official title of a film. Just so you know, I've already been doing this myself (see The Eye Creatures, which I wrote — not Attack of the Eye Creatures, let alone Attack of the the Eye Creatures ☺).

One assumption you seem to be making that may not hold forever is that each MSTied film should have one and only one article, not one for the straight film and one for the episode. (I infer that you implicitly expect any MST3K info to be included in those articles, but I may be overreaching.) There is a low-energy debate about creating separate articles for MST3K episodes, which would address several oddities about this unusual TV show and its fodder:

Many popular TV shows have episode articles with show details; MST3K editors tend to put this data into the film articles.
Many WP editors consider anything more than a simple mention of a film being MSTied as too tangential for an article about the film. (I must agree, as on Wikipedia, I am an editor before I am a rabid MSTie.)
Not only do MST3K episode titles often differ from their subjects' original titles, they frequently differ from any other representation of the title. (See the discussions starting at Talk:List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes#Some title and format standardization for more information about this.)
Films titles are italicized, but TV episodes are double-quoted. How do we denote MST3K episodes? (There is no consistency across the collection of MST3K and related film articles.)

My own contribution (as well as others) to this debate is at Talk:List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes#Episode articles, but I've seen it crop up elsewhere. (Sorry, I can't recall where at the moment, but I imagine it would be in some film article talk pages.)

Given the eventualism of Wikipedia, I'm sure that we'll have article pairs someday. Meanwhile, your naming of film articles makes sense. In fact, some existing film articles should be moved to their more official titles (e.g., Red Zone Cuba to Night Train to Mundo Fine). But the information in "List of MST3K episodes", crammed into such a small place, puts a premium on what we can display, thus our convention for displaying only the episode title and film's original title, and linking the first (ep) title to the relevant film article, even if the title is different (and even if the actual article title is also given). This follows standard Wikipedia practice of linking the first use of a subject in an article to the article that discusses it. Another standard WP practice of including alternative names (especially from article redirects) in the first line of the article should suffice to prevent confusion in the target article. It's far from perfect, but it functions, unless and until we can come up with a better compromise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab Case

Hi Jeffq, sorry for the delay in replying to your MedCab case. Thanks for explaining what's happened since you originally filed and following your comments, I would suggest the case should be closed. If a similar problem reoccurs we can always open a new file. Addhoc 13:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-23 Bullshit! video link#Discussion:

I'm fine with that. Should we post a note at Talk:Bullshit! for opinions, or is it enough that the requestor accepts closure? I mentioned a request for mediation there, but I didn't specify a link, which I probably should have. I don't think anyone else has shown any interest in taking this discussion to a higher level, but I wouldn't want to be accused of misrepresenting the situation. If you haven't already, perhaps you can at least skim through it to see if my summary is adequate. I'm open to suggestions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've closed the case, hope thats ok. Addhoc 13:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBNs

I think another user's bot is going around putting dashes INTO ISBNs... Just FYI. - BalthCat 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:ISBN, dashes shouldn't cause problems, and are in fact "stylistically preferred". From what I've seen so far, the ISBNs flagged with {{Please check ISBN}} are failing to pass an ISBN length and checksum test (i.e., they are not 10 digits long, or their 10th digit is not the correct checksum of the other 9), regardless of whether or not they include dashes. (There was one so far that I've looked at that had 2 consecutive dashes, which is an easily corrected typo.) If you know of a specific set of edits being done by someone, bot or not, that is incorrectly inserting dashes, let me know. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you fixed one and the result was dashless so I thought you might be going through and removing them, so I wanted to mention someone was doing the opposite. Cheers. - BalthCat 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to maintain dashes where I can deduce their "correct" usage, especially now that I see that dashes are supposedly preferred. But I am unaware of any formal structure, so I can't add them where they are missing. If you can point out who is adding them, I'd appreciate it, as I'd like to ask them how they decide where to place dashes. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was User:Smackbot - BalthCat 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of ISBNs, I've noticed that the ISBN you put into many articles on Firefly episodes ("Firefly — The Complete Series DVD set (ISBN 6308024716)") has been flagged as invalid. I'm just curious as to how a DVD set has a "book number" -- I was going to remove the ISBN, but I thought I should check with you first.

As for adding dashes, I tend not to bother trying to figure out where they go. I figure I can just put it in without dashes, the bot can add them properly if it wants. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 23:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVDs often have ISBNs as well as UPCs, just like books do. For example, the Serenity DVD I'm holding in my hand is UPC 025192632723 and ISBN 1-4170-3050-X. However, I noticed, too, that the Firefly DVD boxed-set ISBN was being flagged, and took a look. I must say I have no recollection of where I got that number from! I don't think I got it from the boxed set, because my copy has a vendor barcode slapped on top of the published barcode, and I hadn't tried to remove it. I will have to do some digging to find out where this comes from, or else we'll just have to remove it. (I don't know why it was flagged, as it appears to have the correct checksum, using Morovia Barcode Library's web form.)

One problem I'd forgotten about when I started doing ISBN updates was that the new ISBN-13 system is in place in the publishing industry, and is supposed to be the official primary numbering system for books as of 1 Jan 2007. The transitional ISBN-13 codes (which are valid permanent EAN-13 codes) take the first 9 digits of the old codes, prefix them with a "978", and add a new checksum digit. That's why many recent books have two related book codes in addition to their 12-digit UPCs. (More info is available at isbn.org.) Now that I recall that, I'm thinking that some of the updates I did were in the wrong direction; i.e., 978 codes should be left in place. The problem is that, just like with HDTV and the U.S. broadcasting industry, booksellers (like Amazon.com) and other organizations (like Wikipedia) seem to be dragging their heels on adoption, unwilling to invest the effort in supporting the new system until they absolutely have to.

I'm a bit preoccupied with some major policy revision over at en:Wikiquote right now, but I hope to look into this a bit more, find out what SmackBot and other ISBN updaters are doing and why, and resume my work once I understand the WP situation better. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain movie issues

Hey, thanks for keeping abreast of the PD discussions on The Brain that Wouldn't Die and Teenagers from Outer Space. I'm working on a TfOS project, and obviously misusing footage that is not really in the public domain could be a huge error. UnderPressure 04:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, although I'm afraid it'll be a few weeks before I make any meaningful progress on this, as I'm preoccupied over at Wikiquote at the moment. But as Ah-nold says, "I'll be back." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Jeff, you won't belive this, but I have only just found your note on my page (from October 2005). I think it is because I don't usually bother logging in. Thanks for taking the time to show me how to correctly edit the site.

I was setting questions on Buffy for Mastermind (a quiz show on BBC TV) and had the complete box set DVDs, all 144 episodes, so I was replete with knowledge of all things Buffy. Unfortunately I had to give them all back and by the time I was finished I was too knackered to post any more.

So, thanks again.

Mark Aint no saint 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Hi. You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. If you have the time and interest, I'm asking contributors to past a brief summary of their position on the proposal here, thanks. ~

Verbosity

I saw your "shout-out to another verbose nominator" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Volkan Yucel, but I'm not sure whether I should feel flattered or chastised. ☺ "Shout-out" is usually praise, but "verbose" is usually criticism. Maybe my penchant for making robust cases for unpleasant actions (like deletion) earns both? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the note. It was praise from someone who also often makes similar length nomination(e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stackell which is been around for 15+ hours at time of writing this sentence without response, even though its a totally straightforward WP:VAIN nom) but wonders if this makes more people ignore the nomination as too much effort to read. (I hadn't thought of the negative connotations of verbosity actually - I was thinking of the VERBOSE mode in text adventure games (i.e. the game mode which switches on lengthy room descriptions permanently... this may make no sense if you don't know the genre, but its a neutral usage of the term). Bwithh 12:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm familiar with text adventures, going back to CAVE (to date myself). I have a habit of leaving verbose mode on in my postings, I'm afraid. By the way, you've got your first response on Stackell now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steorn

Jeff, what do you make of this? I reverted it and sent him a note telling him (politely) to take it elsewhere. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, that was weird. I suppose it could be a legitimate retired policeman doing some insider-privileged investigation work, but I hope for his sake it's a hoax or prank instead. It sounds like he violated some privacy laws, and then was foolish enough to post that info to a public forum. I don't know how British police operate, but if someone identifying himself as a retired policeman called me on the phone and asked me to identify myself the way he said he did, I'd be tempted to hang up, too. But even ignoring the wholly inappropriate posting of that information to the article instead of the talk page, I agree with your suggestion. In any case, no matter who the editor actually is, anything he uncovered would be original research (highly original, in fact!), so it wouldn't help us work on the article. If he is legit, and does uncover "something very fishy", he'll have to get his adventure published in the mainstream press to make it useful to us. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely weird. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to ask an admin to scrub that edit from the page history. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a laissez-faire attitude about doing violence to the database for the sake of foolish editors, but knock yourself out if you wish. I have no idea if they would think it wise or unnecessary, but it can't hurt to ask. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let it go. But I should try to find out sometime if there are any guidelines for when stuff should be scrubbed. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated answer

from my wp talk: re: I'm posting a note here about this issue because you don't seem to be monitoring your en:Wikiquote account or any of your template creations there. Several dozen of your templates have been nominated for deletion. Their purpose is not adequately explained, a casual inspection doesn't make clear what need there is for them, and their creator's entire Wikiquote activity seems to be copying this material from other projects. That combination of unused infrastructure creation and lack of general quote activity usually begs deletion on Wikiquote. I admit I'm reluctant to spend the time I suspect is necessary to analyze these templates without any support from their creator. Could you at least supply us with some rationale for their existence, and pointers to where this cross-project effort is being discussed? Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm totally swamped in RL so any and all wiki's, and even email are going unlooked at the moment. Do what you will. However, the benefit of cross-linking the newer sister's and bringing in common tools and some common 'tool' categories is and should be self-evident—it empowers the greater pool of editors in the large 800# sister to make meaningful contribs with minimal learning curves if familiar tools are available.

Admittedly, many tools in some of the wiki's are less important— when category and template analysis and management are small side tasks (Wikinews and Wikiquote being most applicable there), but the infrastructrure and interwiki linking is hardly adversely affecting anything. When in doubt, if something seems 'broken', import the new version from en.wikipedia. I'd planned on completing the evolution and documenting the newer simpler system the end of last month, and BAM, life intruded.

When I next have time to wrap my head about the problem(s) [it is a system after all], I'll be writing it up on Meta-Wiki, as I've also been asked to bring it up to the communications committee there for possible interlanguage adaption, I presume. Adverse reactions have been nil, save for a capitalization clash on wiktionary—their naming conventions favor the lowercase form.

Any examination of the merits of the system templates themselves should be to look at the Wikipedia versions, as I'm certain the versions off Wikipedia are (mostly) a version behind—there was a major revision/upgrade last time I worked them. System elements are identified in Category:Interwiki utility templates by being offset/sorted under '!'.

If you'd be so kind, drop me a status report if things get torn up. I don't have the time now to do wikitalk infighting. Thanks for the heads up! (Crosspost: Jeffq ).

Thanks // FrankB 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize for my delay in responding to your last message. (I have been on a partial wiki-break for the past few weeks after an exhausting session of Wikiquote maintenance.) I'm afraid we did delete the listed templates (although two with obvious merit were restored later), and we also discussed a related template, {{lps}}, which did not achieve consensus due to a lack of participation. See q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Template:WikiPtmp and 36 others and q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Template:Lps for the deletion discussions. I was rather withering in my comments in the latter because I quickly and easily discovered a {{links}} template that does a much better job of the many separate L*s templates that you have been promulgating across projects. I have little patience for folks who get excited about a technology and try to spread it around without first discovering if it's already been done, and done better.

Your stated goal of making editing easier for Wikipedia editors makes some assumptions that you don't justify. First, it assumes that all these editors will follow your lead. The ones who are already experienced usually (A) already have ways to make their work quicker without making editing cryptic for less experienced editors; (B) know to look for, and how to find, existing, well-used templates before they start creating oodles of complicated, cross-linked, inadequately tested or documented templates; and [hopefully] (C) realize that each new template requires one or more responsible editors to provide ongoing maintenance to its users, not just plaster them across projects to see if they stick. Second, it assumes that there will be some effort in the various projects to communicate and explain the use of these templates, which is manifestly not the case here. Third, it assumes that one should make work easier for Wikipedians at the expense of clarity of function for less-wiki-experienced editors from other projects, when just the opposite should be the case: that all Wikimedia projects should put the burden of complexity on those most able to handle it — the experienced editors, not the newbies. Fourth, it assumes that the sister projects will agree with your goals. While I'm sure they all would like some measure of cross-project synchronization, there is a disturbing blindness of too many experienced Wikipedians to the fact that all sister projects are much less complicated and much less populated, so adding cumbersome complexity does active harm to both the editors and the maintainers of these projects.

Your goals are laudable, but I don't believe you realize the work you are creating for others in mass-copying these creations. I also caught you in a misuse of one of these templates, so you yourself demonstrated why these templates are ill-advised. (See my "P.S. to deletion" comment in the WikiPtmp deletion discussion to see how your understanding of {{Meta}} is inaccurate). I would ask that you do quite a bit more research before proceeding with this ambitious project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Award

I present this Original Barnstar to Jeffq for excellent edits to the Container Security Initiative article. **Rosa** 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡Hola! I was just browsing for info. in maritime law and stumbled upon the Container Security Initiative. Nice little article you made there. I know that it was a long time ago but it's never too late for an award, is it? :) Rosa 00:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

¡Hola, Rosamelia! Muchas gracias for the Barnstar for Container Security Initiative, which was one of my earliest attempts to create a serious article not by my domain knowledge but by basic research. I wish I could say it lead to much more of this work, but I'm afraid I've become so preoccupied with Wikiquote that my Wikipedia work has suffered. That's also why it took me so long to thank you properly. I really appreciate the kudos. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandal notice

Thanks for the heads-up; so much for this user turning over a new leaf... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to but in or anything, but, how do you know it's really that guy? Retupmoc 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many tells and methods of operation that typically give away the connections. In this case, the usernames are newly created and typically have some pseudo-clever username. The editors behind them claim to be brand-new to Wikimedia, and yet somehow manage to find their way through a million pages to insinuate themselves into talk page discussions with anti-vandalism editors, especially concerning the vandals in question (what inflated egos!), asking characteristically unusual questions for a newbie. (There are many other indications, of course.) Fortunately, the particular cretin I've been watching is far less clever than he thinks. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randi's Letters To Geller ?

Dear Jeff Q,

Thank you for your message. If you type in the phrase "leave you to your kismet" in the search engine on the Geller website you will find the passage I mean. Yours sincerely, Robert2957 07:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I tried this out and found what you were talking about. I was puzzled to see that, for some reason not obvious to me, the URL "http://www.uri-geller.com/books/magician-or-mystic/chapter13.htm/" appears in the address box of several different pages, including both the irrelevant page displayed when clicking on the cited link and the relevant page the search reveals. Since I'm rather preoccupied with other matters at the moment, I'm afraid I didn't take the time to investigate whether there is some reasonable way to provide a more useful link to this information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is/was?

Hey man, I remember you telling me before that creative works are is and not was, recently Babylon 5 was changed to was I changed it back to is but have just been reverted, is "was" correct in the B5 article isntead of "is"? thanks Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and Cain Mosni is wrong, though obviously well-intentioned. CovenantD and I have restored and expanded on the correction, and I've posted an explanation at Talk:Babylon 5#Tenses. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sources

I have e-mail correspondence that I would like to draw from and cite. These people were participants in the event covered in the entry. Is there a format for citing these as a source? They are a bit long to include verbatim but could be included if edited. Granted it is a biased source, but is a personal electronic interview. Any advice?--Cmderr 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes for formatting information, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for determining whether what you have is suitable for Wikipedia use. But since the WQ VfD for "Bill Randall" puts you under some time pressure, you can tell me what you have and I'll see if I can advise you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Quote for Bill Randall or any other artist probably does not add anything to an academic body of knowledge so I'm if that is deleted it's not a big deal. The quotes come from an e-mail from the person who kept the journal of the art festival. The journal is not published so isn't reliable if I'm reading the guidelines correctly.

However, for the history of the art festival, much of the information sent either to me or to the student that has taken it on as a project, is from the same source. I know how to cite e-mails for academic publication and will read the Wickipedia guidelines this weekend. Thanks. --Cmderr 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikiquote template problem

Hi Jeffq, I just noticed in Clockwise (film), that if the wikiquote is placed before the UK-film-stub template (and I guess all stub templates with a thumb image), it causes display problems (splits the flag from the text). This must be because of the imgage placement property of the templates. The solution is to place Wikiquote after such templates, if they are present in a page. The film, by the way, is one of my top comedies. Cheers! Hoverfish 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for tweaking it so everything's visible. By the way, I only started a stub at q:Clockwise. (I'm afraid I've lost my taste for watching films to get the quotes correct, and haven't been in the mood to watch films for any other reason lately, but I just had to get the "it's the hope" quote and its context locked down.) I invite you to add your favorite quotes to build up the article a bit. If you do, ping me on my WQ user talk page if you have any questions about formatting and such. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello, Jeffq! I think you do a good job helping newcomers to edit well. I saw you edited Simon Soloveychik at wikiquote and added a sign that he has also article at wikipedia. Would you please add to Simon Soloveychik article a sign that he has quotes too? I liked that you also added categories. It would take longer time for me to learn how to do that myself. Thank you. Abuhar 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Wikiquote "box" link to Simon Soloveychik here, just as I did a WP box link to q:Simon Soloveychik. I've also dug up some categories, which are far more numerous and specific at WP than WQ, but I didn't add them because I'm not familiar with the subject, and don't know which might be most appropriate.

There are three basic ways to figure out what WP categories to use. One is to study the category tree, starting from the top, which I personally find rather challenging. A second is to take your best guess initially and preview a category like Category:Writers, clicking on the subcategories (if you have JavaScript enabled in your wiki preferences) to see what subcategories might be appropriate. In this case, I found the following possibilities:

Under Category:Writers by nationality→Category:Russian writers

(Walking the tree from Category:Writers by format looked like it would give the same results ultimately, just sorted differently.)

The third way is to think of someone very similar to your subject and see what their WP article includes for categories. The more well-known the subject, the more likely the categories are to be as specific and thorough as they ought to be.

Regardless of how you find them, be sure to add a category sort label (a "sort key" text following a vertical bar) if the subject of the article would ordinarily be sorted by something other than the first word of the title (usually for articles starting with "A", "An", or "The", and Western-style names which are sorted by the surnames). For example, one might add one of the above categories with the following format:

[[Category:Russian journalists|Soloveychik, Simon]]

Take a look at the Wikiquote article to see that's how I added the categories for Soloveychik there.

When deciding which of the many possible categories to add, one should consider what the subject is well-known for. For instance, Isaac Asimov may have tried his hand at writing romance novels, but that wouldn't necessarily put him into Category:American romantic fiction writers.

Finally, I recommend you edit this posting to see how I created the links to the WP article, the link from here to a WQ article, and the category links. You should include links to the wiki pages you talk about in your posts, to make it easier for readers to jump to the subject of discussion. (Note especially that, for categories, the in-text links that allow you to click to bring up the category are slightly different than the ones that you add to the bottom of an article.) Much of learning Wikimedia editing and practices involves observing how other folks have done the things you're trying to do, and it can be a lot easier than sifting through megabytes of policy and instruction text. Feel free to ask me questions, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PC

I've changed the link on PC which is where I got the redirect link from, future changes will go to the proper article. Thanks -- pb30<talk> 06:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic's dictionary/Robert Todd Carroll

I saw your comment at the Robert Carroll article. The same person put the same thing on Skeptic's Dictionary. Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed. I'm afraid my assessment at Talk:Skeptic's Dictionary#importance wasn't quite as straightforward. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bitter thought just to share with someone who listens

Thank you Jeffq for helping me with "boxes" and explaining me how to insert categories. However, I don't think I will have energy for that, as you say it is challenging even for experts like you.

I am just very disappointed. I worked on my article about "dignity" in Wikipedia, improved it to the beautiful level, then someone Tug201 deleted most of my part and I had to delete the rest because I didn't want to see how badly it sounded after all. Then someone restored something absolutely nonsense, mix of everything, without thinking, just formal filling the blank space, and of course forgetting the link, which leads to the article where the first part of the text comes from (www.parentingforeveryone.com/dignity).

I think the energy I spent on creating a good stuff takes so much efforts that I don't have an energy to edit the stuff for the full fitting format. so the other people "think" they are doing a good job by "formatting" others works. I would appreciate if those people did their job thoughtfully. But when they hunt for "spam" and themselves don't notice that they just vandal the content, how do you think is it challenging to work further? To fight? Why for, so that people just destroy everything you have done once again? Sad. There is no motivation for me to work further in wikipedia to write wonderful ideas to the world, if it is so frigile, so vulnerable, and not secured from real vandals. If someone just begin looking for what eventually happenned in the dignity page, the first thing you would notice is the organisation Dignity USA, which is about gays' dignity. I don't mind their dignity but why it must be the first thing about the concept of general human dignity??? Well, I vented, sorry for that.

Is there something like forum where I can discuss this with serious wikipedians? How to prevent a good stuff from "editing" vandals? I need someone to look at the history of dignity page and tell me if I am right or wrong, and why. anyway thank you for reading this. Abuhar 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing can indeed be a rough experience, especially for newer editors. There are a few important principles to keep in mind when attempting to contribute to a Wikipedia article:

Articles must be written from the broadest context, avoiding specific cultural points of view wherever possible (or at least breaking different cultural views into separate paragraphs or sections). As we all tend to experience the world largely within our own cultures, this can be quite a challenge.

Articles cannot contain any existing material from non-public-domain sources beyond a few select, quoted phrases and passages. The bulk of an article must be written in the words of its editors.

Nobody "owns" an article. We must all accept that our material will be modified by other editors. The idea is that the larger community provides enough diversity to determine a consensus about the subject. It can be hard to accept this for a particular article (especially when we work hard on it), but this principle works far more often than not.

Specific assertions and statements of fact should contain cited sources. Many editors do not realize this, but it is becoming more important as Wikipedia grows in importance. Anything that another editor might reasonably disagree with should include a published source. It is relatively easy to write about a subject; it is much more challenging, but far more useful to readers, to write a well-sourced article or section.

Material that reads like an opinion piece or essay is likely to get thoroughly diced, much to the disappointment of its contributors. Opinions inevitably vary between populations, and Wikipedia is designed to collect global human wisdom, not just the point of view of a single person or even a entire culture.

Writing about a concept

Something as broadly defined and used as "dignity" simply cannot be discussed in terms of a single author, or even two. I'd have to agree that the version of the article before your first edit really needed some improvement (and a whole lot of sourcing!), but your initial solution was, however interesting, a step in the wrong direction. It is rarely a good idea to replace an article long worked on by many editors with a completely new document, and it is never a good idea to use an excerpt from a published work as a Wikipedia article. I see from the edit history that you were not the only editor to make this mistake on this article.

It is unfortunate that many editors, in their haste, can be quite sharp about the changes (e.g., saying "plagiarism" and "vandalism" when they should perhaps be saying "excessive quotation" and "unexplained changes" or "off-topic material"). We are supposed to assume good faith of other editors, but we don't always live up to this ideal.

I attempted to find another article on a broad ideal like "dignity", to provide you with an example of a well-written, well-sourced article, but I'm afraid I found that most similar subjects (e.g., wisdom, courage, honour) are also poorly written and often totally unsourced. This is perhaps not too surprising, as the broader a subject, and the more it involves specific cultural traditions, the less likely a global group of editors will be able to achieve a consensus on what exactly the article should say about the subject. The only one I've found that has at least a little going for it is Obedience (human behavior). It discusses a number of aspects of its topic more or less dispassionately from a number of cultural points of view, and includes many published sources for its statements without including large copyright-violating excerpts from published authors. Yet even this article, as the tags at its top indicate, has serious problems. This is apparently typical of these "concept" articles, making them a very hard type with which to start one's Wikpedia editing.

I don't have any specific advice for you on improving the Dignity article, largely because it is so broad and culturally variable. If I were writing or editing it, I would feel it necessary to first read a few diverse books on the subject, jotting down notes on particular pithy quotes and important ideas from the many points of view, and then assembling them into some logical organization. I think it would be very difficult to edit this article otherwise, especially since the current material seems to be mostly an unsourced, unorganized essay.

Closing thoughts

No one expects any single editor to create a robust, well-written article by themselves. It is the nature of Wikipedia that our best articles have the "footprints" of many different editors on them. But the flip side to this process is that we must all be prepared to have our own contributions edited, dissected, and criticized. Most long-term editors eventually learn that, despite the occasional rudeness or preemptory mangling of our thoughtfully written text, it can be an enjoyable experience to propose material, defend it, learn from others' ideas, and ultimately build a consensus on a subject. In the process, we often learn a lot about the world outside our own experiences, making this effort a rewarding educational opportunity as well.

As far as support from other editors, you can try Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, but they work best with specific questions. Wikipedia:Esperanza bills itself as a support group for stressed Wikipedia editors, but recent experience with them suggests to me that many participants there are not very informed on what it means to edit well at Wikipedia, so I'm a bit skeptical about how much they can help. But you can check them out for yourself. You might also try to work for a while on smaller and more specific topics, to "get your feet wet" with general editing and content disputes, before you take on the challenge of a topic as broad (and an article as, shall we say, lacking) as Dignity.

I hope that you don't take this conflict to heart, and can continue to work with other editors to craft excellent articles. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! It took some time for me to come back. You put so much effort to educate and support me, so I can't let this work be in vain. I am back! Abuhar 04:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight In San Juan

Hi, can you go back and fix what you did to the Midnight In San Juan page, please? It now reads "Midnight n San Juan", which is clearly wrong. Thanks. Bretonbanquet 13:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, how dumb of me. I moved it (and its talk page) back to the old name, then to the title I'd meant to move it to — Midnight in San Juan — in order to leave a logical edit history and to quickly get rid of the useless typo'd name. Sorry about the confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! A lot quicker than it took for me to notice it! Easy mistake to make - thanks for clearing it up. Bretonbanquet 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Brown Is Dead

Thank you for pointing out the capitalization guideline for the James Brown is Dead article. I will be sure to observe it in the future. ◄HouseOfScandal ► 09:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Jeffq/2006b

Comments vandalism

Please dont move..

Thank you Jeff

Precedent for blanking an AfD?

You may not be a lawyer

James J. Shapiro

Section headings

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose Headphone Family

Shapiro

Applying the WP:CORP criteria for products and services

Re: RfA

Cheers

August 2006 Firefly Newsletter

Cost of Steorn ad

Edit Summaries

Thanks

Thanks newuser questions

MST3K

MedCab Case

ISBNs

Public Domain movie issues

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy

Verbosity

Steorn

Belated answer

Barnstar Award

Re: Vandal notice

Randi's Letters To Geller ?

is/was?

sources

wikiquote template problem

Thank you!

Re: PC

Skeptic's dictionary/Robert Todd Carroll

A bitter thought just to share with someone who listens

Midnight In San Juan

James Brown Is Dead