User talk:John Broughton/Archive 9 September-October 2007

Please tell me if there's a lack of understanding

I have been watching policies being discussed on the Village Pump (policy) page before consensus is made and steps are taken. I have also noticed discussions beginning at some policy, article or Wikiproject page and spilling over onto the village pump. And, of course I have been watching policies being proposed at the Village Pump (proposals). I have even taken part in a couple of them. I am discussing this list issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, though, I must admit, not with much success. I was thinking that the problem of not getting people interested lied in the fact that the subject itself is not appealing enough to get them interested. But, judging by you comments at the Pump, I am seriously thinking that there may be a problem with the discussion process as well. At the wikiproject discussion you will see that quite a few AfDs has been raised, some were successful too. But, an overall solution has not been achieved. I also have left a reply to your last comment at the Pump on this issues. Please, let me know what I am doing wrong here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this, it seems to me that Wikipedia:Lists (a guideline) and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), part of the Manual of Style, are the best places to work this issue. I also think you probably should frame it differently: (a) do those two guidelines, as written, provide what you consider to be useful and complete guidance on how to deal with problematical company lists; and (b), if not, can you change them? (Or, to put it differently, I think most experienced editors feel that Wikipedia has just about enough policies and guidelines, and if they're not adequate, it's best to tweak them rather than try to create a new, and probably overlapping guideline.) Or, to put it yet differently again, lists of companies probably aren't really that different (policy-wise) from lists of bands or lists of entertainers or lists of software products or lists of authors or whatever.

To me, the best approach is an iterative one: if existing guidelines are inadequate, tweak them; if you get resistance to your tweaks, reconsider your position, and if you still think it's okay, try to get others involved (via posts at relevant WikiProjects and the village pump); if you have a guideline you think is sufficient to justify cutting back or recommending for deletion an article (list), do so; if you get resistance, cite the guideline; if that gets pushback at the guideline, then let others know.

In short, I think you should keep three principles in mind, all of them based on the fact that most Wikipedians prefer discussions of specifics, not generalities: (a) tweak the guidelines, don't try for brand new ones; (b) use the guidelines to modify or propose specific articles for deletion; (c) if you run into resistance, and you bring the matter to the attention of others, mention specific wording (in a guideline) or specific articles where the issue has arisen, not generalities.

And finally, while I commend you for your concern with this, and wish you the best of luck in getting an active discussion of this issue with others, do keep in mind that if there doesn't seem to be enough energy in the community for what you want, there are always a myriad of other issues that have energized others where you could also contribute. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. Let me see what I can do, and I'd expect that to be quite a lot. Just two more questions - (1) do I tweak the guidelines straight or through discussion? (2) if I have more questions, can I come back to you? And, oh, I have figured out the most difficult way of dealing with these problematic lists (if I may dare to even say it) - actively cleaning up the whole bunch of them. Which would mean about a hundred or so page on my maintenance list. But, nothing is impossible, I guess. I think I am going to work on this last idea for a couple of weeks to see what can be achieved this way. Thanks again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sure, you can always come back and ask more questions. As for tweaking or discussing, it really depends (a) on whether the matter has been discussed on the talk page before (if so, do so again), and (b) how much the "tweak" is - is it elaboration of existing words, or does it break new ground? If the latter, then something like "I'm about to add/change the following to the guideline - if anyone has any comments or suggestions, please let me know", plus the proposed text, is sufficient. You don't have to do any justification (maybe a brief intro - "I think that the guideline needs X"); save your arguments for if/when someone else has concerns. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Ted Stevens

Hi - at your request, I moved a copy of the deleted article into your userspace here: User:John Broughton/Criticism of Ted Stevens. MastCell ^Talk 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wooyi/Readability

It's not gone, it's still here User:Wooyi/Readability. But I don't know when did they userfy it, it was in the wikipedia space. I personally was not informed about any discussion behind it. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the discussion was not linked from edit summaries, instead, I had to dig it out from the village pump archives. I was not as active here as before so I'm really need to keep up to date! I remember last name when I returned from inactivity, the userboxes appeared from nowhere. =) Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

John, don't know if this is the proper way to speak with you or not. Just wanted to thank you for your helpful comments on the Drawing Board regarding the article I was thinking of writing. I really appreciate the time you took and the advice you offered.

Trevor790 Trevor790 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on User Conduct - Matt Sanchez / Bluemarine

Hello, may I ask for your participation in an RFC established for user Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez? The reason for the Request for Comment is set out in the RFC summary here. Whether you support or oppose it, your input would be appreciated.Typing monkey 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

USDA

Hi, resignation announced today -- see http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/09/20/thursday/index.html 71.232.211.130 14:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your removal of the Indian states projects

In the process of creating the new draft of the directory, I saw how many other projects there were for the various Indian states already. There did not seem to be any activity regarding those not yet with projects, and I was curious why. Therefore, somewhat on the basis of the statement on the top of the page regarding "needed projects", I proposed the projects for the various indian states which don't yet have them. If none get the required support to be started, that will indicate to any future proposers that there isn't enough support to start them, and we with any luck won't have any more abortive projects like the Goa Project. On that basis, I restored them all to the proposals page. If they don't receive the necessary support, and that seems to me likely, they will be archived in due time, and will hopefully make anyone proposing or thinking of creating them later think twice before doing so. John Carter 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly they will. But, once they are archived, there with any luck won't be anyone going about and creating them, having them fall inactive later, which would then force someone to try to either delete the projects outright or try to turn them into task forces of WikiProject India. Unfortunately, there are a lot of inactive projects, many of them national/regional, and I thought it would be better to clog up the proposals page with just a paragraph or two for each than to later make everyone have to try to deal with fully developed inactive projects which would have to require much more work to effectively deal with. If you want to see just how many such inactive projects already exist, go to the in-progress Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Inactive projects page. John Carter 14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

I've seen you around. It's nice to see you back at the Drawing Board. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: The Missing Manual

Sorry if this is off the point but I was wondering if this is you. Looks like a cool book--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

hehe, well, there's only one word for it; Cool!--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As it gets closer to press time, I'd like to interview you for the Signpost, if that sounds all right to you (remind me if I forget! :P) Ral315 » 12:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The book looks great from what the blurb says. Was the Editorial Index you maintain helpful in writing it? Oh, there is a very silly thread about this on the wiki-en mailing list. I would normally link to it, but I wouldn't recommend you read it. I'll assume you know how to find it if you want to do so. Carcharoth 13:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see I missed the prize! :-) Carcharoth 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be the hypothetical prize. And thanks for mentioning the wiki-en thread; someone else pointed that out to me (I'd dropped my subscription to the mailing list due to lack of time). Let's just say that I find the range of views expressed via the mailing list, on this and other topics, to be remarkable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied via email, thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on sourcing revisited

I have asked this question at the Village Pump (policy) also, but I wanted to hear from you and Blueboar directly.

I asked a question about copying text and sources from other Wikipedia articles and User:PalaceGuard008 asked a question below mine on the same issue on the Village Pump (policy). We disagree on what you and Blueboar said. PalaceGuard008 copied text and sources from one Wikipedia article and put them in another article in a different context. He says that you and Blueboar said it is O.K. to do that.

I wrote an article in which I used sources referencing ancient Chinese history. User:PalaceGuard008 copied much of the text and all the book sources and put them in his article Caisson (Asian architecture) which is mostly about a period in Chinese architecture that is 1000 years later. Then he #REDIRECT the article I was working on to his, Caisson (Asian architecture). He has incorrectly applied the book references and the text he copied. They do not refer to the content of his article. I have endlessly discussed this with him on the article talk page, his talk page and my talk page. There is no more to discuss as I have said everything I can to him to voice my objections over the last several weeks to no end.

In the answers on Village Pump (policy) that you voiced agreement on regarding copying sources and text from other Wikipedia articles, were you saying that his copying text and references from one Wikipedia article and putting them in a different context, different time period etc. in Caisson (Asian architecture) is correct? I have the books and he is misusing the references.

If you agree with me that he is acting incorrectly what should I do? If I try to remove any he just reverts. I even supplied an online source that referenced a statement he was using one of the books I have for, and he reverted that also.

If you say he is right, then I will drop the issue. Thanks! --Mattisse 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering

I will do as you say. And I do devote most of my time writing articles and recently have had atleast 10 DYK's on my articles. (In fact, the DYK's are how PalaceGuard008 saw my article to begin with and then used the #REDIRCT after copying content and references without even notifying me! ANI said he had to use a MERGE but he disregarded that.)

I do have another question. I have point out in each instance why the reference is incorrect. One example, in one case he says a tomb has three caissons and quotes the book I have. My book does not say that and does not mention caissons at all regarding that tomb, but he refuses to remove the reference. How do I handle that?

Thanks! --Mattisse 12:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer!

Blueboar offered to mediate on the talk page. Perhaps you could join in too. I wish you would. I am compiling right now my specific objections and will post them on the talk page. I thank you so much for your help and advice. Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Link for your list

Under A: Administrators, in the section "After becoming an administrator", I thought you might like to add Wikipedia:New admin school (WP:NAS), which is a safe place new admins can experiment to block, protect, delete, and try out various other tools. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 12:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, I'm glad you found the link helpful, but I've never had an RfA, lol. I'm not an admin, just someone who thinks that's a helpful page for new admins, and I've watched several folks work through it with good results. ;) Ariel♥Gold 13:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes, I know the thread, and yes probably still in November. :) Thanks for your kind words, and I'm glad we've had a chance to "meet"! Of course I've known of your list of links, I do keep my own bookmarks page, but yours is decidedly more organized, explanatory, and thorough, so it is of course a great reference to me! Let me just take the opportunity to thank you for having it available! Ariel♥Gold 14:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup question

Blueboar offered to mediate and asked me to list my objections on the article talk page. He said that my objections were a good start. PalaceGuard008 said he was glad I was seeing thing his way. Blueboar said that now he felt his services were no longer needed and apparently has disengaged.

However, it is clear that PalaceGuard008 is is not going to address my objections. What should I do now? Should I start listing them over one by one in separate sections? These are all objections I have brought up previously and PalaceGuard008 has dismissed them. However, it took me a long time to get them all together yesterday, and I hate to think that was wasted time. Can I wait a few days and then start the procedure you suggested, based on my list of objections on the talk page that Blueboar asked me to do? Thanks! --Mattisse 14:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed to jump the gun on the Caisson article. It's just that PalaceGuard008 continued to edit other articles after he posted his agreement with you and Blueboar on the Caisson talk page. But perhaps I was too quick to jump to the conclusion that he would treat my "Issues" as he has in the past and disregard them. I'm so glad you are involved. Thanks! --Mattisse 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Homeschooling

• I noticed you seemed to express interest in WikiProject Homeschooling here, but did not sign up. If you are still interested, may I go ahead and sign you up for that. Your help is greatly needed. • EvanS :: talk § email § photos • 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please respond at my talk page --• EvanS :: talk § email § photos • 22:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you no longer part of the dialog?

All your comments have been removed from Caisson (Asian architecture). Does that mean you will not be participating anymore?

Regards, Mattisse 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice needed on Caisson

Hey, as you know Mattisse has stormed out of the process. Now he is editing the article to add in irrelevant material about classical (Graeco-Roman) architecture and about engineering, despite the "Asian" "architecture" in the title. I don't get the reasoning behind it, but he has been attacking the word "caisson" on the basis that it can mean multiple things, so now he is adding those multiple things into this article.

I'm going to revert these edits because the material is clearly irrelevant - but what do you think I should do about it? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to answer you question.

The original article I wrote for DYK was zaojing. I don't know how to demonstrate what happened by diffs and such.

I wrote the article and did get a DYK for it on September 8. When I when back to continue working on it, there was a #REDIRECT to Caisson (Asian architecture) and the contents of the article, zaojing, had been copy/pasted into that article in among the content that was already there

I did complain on ANI and PalaceGuard008 was told that what he did was unacceptable without CONSENSUS. (This may not be the best diffs but you get the general idea.)

• [1] Redirect without consensus is unacceptable October 9 - disruptive behavior
• [2] PalaceGuard008 told to merge. October 9 - someone put a message on his talk page.

However, the end result was that PalaceGuard008 did what he wanted anyway, using the sources and text from the original zaojing article and stuck them, seemingly without understanding the content and what the references were referring to into his article. PalaceGuard008 told to merge. Since I wanted to continue the article on pre 7th century Chinese architecture, (and to protect my DYK, as petty as that is) I redirected the article to another name Ancient Chinese wooden architecture and moved much of the original contents of zaojing to that article and rewrote it some. (I also have a copy of the original zaojing article on a user page.) You can see the DYK under the new article name, and also the comments from another editor of Chinese articles that I asked to give an opinion.

I complained that PalaceGuard008 and incorrectly placed references from zaojing. He said he was in the right. I asked my question at Wikipedia Pump (policy). You know the rest of the story.

I hope I have explained this correctly. (My internet connection is being worked on as I write this, so I am not able to take the time to give more of an explanation. Feel free to ask me more question. I agree that I went over the edge yesterday because I found the whole mediation preceding a farce. I am sorry for losing my cool. But essentially I ended up doing PalaceGuard008's work for him again by providing the Issues while he abused me. Sorry for being "too sensitive" as Blueboar said I was. Maybe I am.

I have to get off the computer now for a small while so my Internet connection can be checked -- it is fixed now I believe. I'll repair this notes shortly. I don't have time to check it now.

Regards, Mattisse 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer but no question?

Somehow I got the idea that you asked me a question that I answered in the above post. Now I cannot find where, if anywhere, you did ask me that question. I apologize if you did not ask and I posted by mistake. (My internet connect was being fixed and I only had sporadic access -- I must have gotten confused over something.)

If I erred, please disregard or delete, whatever your practice is. Sorry. Mattisse 17:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

copyvios

Hi. Thanks for your comments on the copyright issue & references. I have been strolling through the user contributions & talk page history for the author of the articles and I see that copyright violations have been an issue with him since the beginning. For a long time it was images. Then a couple months or so ago, he started making a huge number of new articles with a 2 or 3 line body and monstrously large copy & pasted paragraphs & bios into the references and called it good. There's so much of it going on that it's mind-boggling. Hopefully you've looked at some of the pages in question. Personally, I think it's an end run around actually writing an article. When I looked at the Dan Antonioli AfD, I proposed keeping it, but I also let him know right away that it needed serious work. He just kept making new articles and didn't bother with it. So I brought it up. Because of the tone the discussion took, I ended up putting it up as a copyvio. Anyway, an adminstrator came in and looked over the page in question and said it should be up for speedy delete. Original author went around it, approached 2 other administrators about it, and took the copyvio tag off of the article without letting it go through due process as outlined in the policies. He took a lot of the copied material out of the references on the Antonioli page, but there are still scores of articles out there that are the same.

He's been relatively quiet about it all, but there is another user from the same state as he who got extremely vocal about it, and actually in my opinion, borderline abusive in his refusal to actually discuss the issue at hand. I made a comment that it certainly could be a sign of a sock puppet, and then he was threatening. This other user keeps pushing for someone to make a statement about how much can be included. That just isn't the issue. Common sense and logic answers that. One never needs to copy an entire biography from a college faculty website to establish the person went to college or belongs to a national organization. And one never needs a colorful and wordy description of a person's garden to establish that the person built a community center. No one should have to explain that to a contributor who purports to have a college degree. Honestly, it's not ignorance, it's passive-aggression to get what one wants, and it's giving me a huge pain in the posterior. :)

I've also discovered that the original author has archived articles under controversy on user subpages of other users, on at least 2 occasions. How weird is that?

Okay, I'm done. Thanks again!! Wildhartlivie 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)