User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden

Ok - so I was having a bit of a zen moment, hence the name of this particular corner of the wiki. This is the page where I'd like to reflect on my wiki experiences, talk with friends, colleagues, people who disagree with any of my ideas, or find me wanting in any way - all are welcome.

Thanks for coming by... I thought I better make the garden a bit prettier if I'm to have guests..! here's a good place to start by the way, and here's a spot to look backwards, for the sake of moving forwards perhaps.....

Wiki Mentoring[edit]

The specific inspiration for this page has been a recommendation that I seek out a 'mentor', and I thought that as well as doing that, I'd keep the process entirely open. I've cajoled User:Lar to accept the official hat from me, but I'd actually like to be mentored by you, wiki reader - whomever you may be. Feel free to edit below, ask questions, make suggestions - It'd be great for this to be a very 'wiki' mentoring experience.

Giovanni di Stefano[edit]

First I really must add a disclaimer here - that the GdS article is really a very hot potato - with possible serious consequences not only for the project, but for those who edit the article personally. GdS states that he is suing named editors for 50million euros in Italy - if you read the sources available you'll also note that GdS has stated that he has sued many others, some of whom report being unaware of any legal action to this day.

So it's not only a wikipedia hot potato, but a real world one too. There's a whole bunch of stuff in the wiki-past about this article - I feel that I was incredibly badly treated for no good reason - but here are two tangible suggestions to improve the article;

Giovanni di Stefano (born July 1, 1955 in Pertrella Tifernina, near Campobasso, Italy) is a European lawyer^{[citation needed]} based in Italy.

It's my view that the European lawyer requires a source.

actually - I think it should read; Giovanni di Stefano (born July 1, 1955 in Pertrella Tifernina, near Campobasso, Italy) is a lawyer based in Italy.

The article and talk page history should be restored where possible. The deletion rationale should be discussed 'on-wiki' in my view. I'm happy to go into this in general terms, or whatever level of detail is considered appropriate.

An update - the recent edits at the article, and talk, pages are quite interesting! - Looks like this is in pretty good hands. The sources now quoted in detail on the talk page are the reason the talk page history remains deleted, ironically enough - on a rationale of 'Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for' (see here for an interesting exchange prior to one of my indefinite blocks...) - heaps of stuff to talk about here if anyone's interested, otherwise I'm just glad the article is moving in the right direction!! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd be great to get the history undeleted at this point - absolutely all the material deemed to be inappropriate to the point of requiring deletion is now either in the article, or on the talk page (that, and much worse actually!) - there are many reasons why an undeletion is a good idea, and were I unrestricted, I'd suggest it! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would undeletion be a good idea? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If all the deleted material is now back on the existing talk page, but it's now accompanied by proper context, then let's not open that can of worms. On related news, I found on the internets what look slike a copy of the old article that was deleted per BLP http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Giovanni_Di_Stefano , and let me tell you that it's of horrible quality and very badly sourced, no wonder it got deleted, it's probably up to the standards of 2004, with no inline references and stuff, so you can't check if the end of the first paragraph under "Political ambitions" is a sourced fact or if it is an editorial opinion by some biased editor who hates the guts of Giovanni. I don't want to imagine how bad the talk page must have been. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm.. I'm happy enough to let this one lie at the mo.. but still am kinda of the opinion that the deleted revisions should be returned baring a clear and present legal issue (anything 'per Mike Godwin' would be sensible, of course) - I think the license compliance issues, and the advantage of being able to see how a difficult article evolved, in order to learn wider lessons, would merit the return of the history. I'm always open to a 'left turn' though - which may include a discussion of my BLP editing there instead (I guess this is in some ways the heart of the matter?) - I think admin.s can see the revisions cited by arbcom here (there are only three) - so feedback on them most welcome... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)ps. enric - well done! - you're doing a great job at the article now, and I wish you well with it! - I think it's vastly improved.

Thanks, man, I do what I can :) You are right on seeing how a difficult article evolved, I would like to see those talk pages to see what problems arised at that time, but I'm not an admin. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

<- well it was a pretty odd one... hopefully the admin.s around here might be willing to take a look, and restore at least some of the history.. we'll see! (by the way my draft of the article was deleted as 'libellous content' - and from recollection it looked at least a little bit like yours! I think I've got a copy of the text somewhere, and will try and dig it out to review.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ok... I found it, and reviewed it.. and would like to post it in a subpage here. I was a bit surprised that it upset and angered me a bit, to be honest - I'd like some sunlight on this for the record, in due course...... Privatemusings (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was deleted as libellous, then don't repost on wikipedia, as it will speedied as recreation of deleted content WP:CSD#G4 or even as BLP-problematic WP:CSD#G10, and you will get again into trouble for BLP problems. Actually, you shouldn't repost it anywhere, as you will probably also get in trouble if you repost it off-site :P (man, it must totally suck to have been the target of an Arbcom case).

Send me a copy by email and I'll check it out. If my draft is very similar to your draft, then I'll ask the deleting admin to review it and see if it should also be deleted. I suppose that my draft does not have those problems because nobody has said anything after having a lot of visibility on the talk page of the article and now being on a RFC, but better make sure. I can also see what problems the other draft had that caused the deletion for being "libellous", so I can avoid them on this one. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've sent it over... I should add by the way that I hadn't considered the possibilities of attribution at the point I drafted that version (as in 'The BBC reported in... etc.') - and I do see merit in that approach. I've also asked for further advice about restoring that page somewhere here, so we'll see how that goes..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, man, your draft is very different, you had me worried there :) I reply by email on the differences. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks heaps for taking a look, and getting back to me Enric... I totally agree with the points you made in your email about the devil being in the details... I suspect that the degree of difference in the drafts may also be a question of level of zoom... from my perspective both are far from libellous, though yours is far superior! (and your mileage may vary... IANAL and all that...!) - I feel I've learned quite a lot watching your work over there... and we'll see if some of your off-wiki analysis might be permissible 'on-wiki' at some point... that's another benefit of getting some of this stuff out in the open.. others may be able to see the benefits of clear 'best practice' (your approach) with a specfic context.... we'll see.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

<- interestingly - recent commentary at the article talk page seem to echo previous discussion - this is an example of where I think it's a bit unfair to hide previous good faith editors contributions (not withstanding my own ;-) ) - it forces folk into large circles, which I think is counter productive. I can't link to it or see it (but I don't think it'd be that hard to find!) - this may be worth a look though... Privatemusings (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

interesting to me to wonder what this might mean in the light of the above.... I hope to leave Coventry at some point in the future and maybe chat about it :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

David Williams[edit]

Resolved

– happy with the satus quo

this and this edit could, I guess, be seen by some as contravening my restriction - I obviously hope they're acceptable edits - this being the sort of wiki-gnoming which I most enjoy, and would like to be able to do quietly! - feedback most welcome; Privatemusings (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You most enjoy wiki-gnoming that contravenes your restriction? Hows about you stick to commenting on project talk pages (no need to mentioned your arbcom restriction all the time), and avoid the former diff as that one leads down a slippery slope. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

nah - the wiki gnoming I enjoy refers to taking and uploading the odd photo, I find it fun! - I don't like the scarlet letter at all, but wanted to be clear about not only what I was requesting, and why I wasn't just being a lazy so and so... (I mean, I am... but I don't want people knowing that!) but also I wanted to be open and honest and clear about my situation (there's a bit of 'covering my back' in there, I guess....) - the thought of leaving the David Williams thing in, and bringing it here, for example, annoyed me just enough to press edit - I've done that a few times with obvious vandalism, but p'raps this was a little too close to call..... point taken. Privatemusings (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

glad to see the wikiproject posting worked out good... I'll post there if I get some more photos in the coming weeks, and hope that this isn't seen as at all problematic. Privatemusings (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael_Brotherton[edit]

Resolved

– am interested in researching this chap more, and working on the article in due course

First page up - Michael_Brotherton.... another interesting one! - my thoughts / comments to follow - probably tomorrow.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

but could someone please consider removing the definitive article from the rather vainglorious infobox here in the meanwhile.... there is only one of 'em, but I don't think he deserves it! Privatemusings (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

done. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

that whole article is kinda appalling actually... but is quite a heated area to be getting involved in... because I'm here for advice etc., I might as well ask - should I suggest some changes there? Privatemusings (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No. If it is a hot topic, then there are enough eyes on it already. Pick a different button, where we can play this little "smile for arbcom" game without interference. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Brotherton was one of my earlier articles (well, expanded from a stub); obviously if I was doing it now I would have added many more references. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

we could head off into a further discussion (like the Scott one above) here - particularly of interest is the morality / ethics of writing about living people whilst remaining (pseudo)anonymous... the wiki process is not very good at taking editorial responsibility for the overall slant / bias / impression of an article, and it is on that level, and a few specifics that I'd suggest some changes to this one.... plus I hate to sound like a broken record, but unsourced information of any kind really should be removed pending sources, I think... Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

here's an easy opening edit I'd suggest;

"A right-wing Conservative," change to --->
"Considered to be on the right wing of the Conservative party,"

because 'right wing' tends to mean different things in different places, and it seems useful to me to be clear which political spectrum this term is applied to.... maybe more later! Privatemusings (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "right wing", worded either way? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the presence of a local source (which I haven't seen, but which is quite likely to exist) solves the 'different meanings' problem mentioned above... the 'right wing' bit has been removed (possibly by me a while ago?) at the mo... Privatemusings (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Penny[edit]

Resolved

– was more of a lead into a longer, general discussion

This one was fifth up after the above... there's some pretty obvious vandalism that needs removing - and again, I feel that a 'prod' would be the best thing for it. I'm actually loathe to remove the vandalism myself without removing material that is very clearly utterly unsubstantiated.. I'm becoming more interested in the fact that when we hit 'Save' we're in some way taking responsibility for veracity of the material.... I think we need a cultural shift fairly urgently, because articles like this simply aren't good enough. Privatemusings (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I know that no-one's reading! :-) There's still a bit of vandalism there..... Privatemusings (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:P 86.44.28.197 (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(longer discussion, slightly tangential, in the page history) - Privatemusings (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

12th up today - Mohamed_Ali_Yousfi[edit]

It's this sort of page that kind of annoys me not to be able to fix up... it would be so straight forward... in fact (and I think this is ok..?) - feel free to review this page which is my attempt to tidy up a bit. Privatemusings (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Done John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Privatemusings/StormPics[edit]

Resolved

– they were all used! hooray!

Some more BLP editing that I'll pester someone to take a look at when I get the chance! - A bunch of maybe-just-about-ok-to-use pics from last night. Just don't talk to me about the result.. in fact don't talk to me at all - I seem to have left my voice at the ground. Privatemusings (talk) 06:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fierce_(artist)[edit]

Resolved

– article deleted

First up today (this refers to the number of times I pressed the 'random' button btw) - the sources used seem to be self-published, which may or may not be a problem - and he's not in the 'living people' category, which he probably should be. What's most interesting about this article for me is the veritable rabbit warren of genre type articles it led me down.... we have what looks like tens (if not hundreds) of articles about genres like Neurofunk, and Dark ambient - many of which refer to each other in their leads, but aren't really strongly referenced. We may need to take a look at how the musical sub-cultures which love to define genre after genre after genre translate into the best encyclopedic content. It's my first impression that there's an awful lot of chaff there.. of course I can edit freely in these areas, I just thought it was interesting! Privatemusings (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I have a sort of odd feeling that articles like Afro prog actually have an interesting role to play in sociological / cultural study.... we may even have a sort of ideological fork on some level as to the purpose of this project... I mean, in almost every empirical way, the article's rubbish - but the fact that someone felt motivated to write it.... now that's interesting... is that enough to keep it? dunno really... this whole area requires more thought! Privatemusings (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)would you believe Mathcore came up on the random button a few clicks later?! This collection of articles is crazy! does it matter?

The contribs by Geneologist (talk · contribs) feel like a walled garden. Not many reliable sources for any of them. To Prod, or to Afd; that is the question. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

are you suggesting prod-ing an unsourced article, john ;-) I think that's a wonderful idea!! - goodness knows what to do about the huge no. of genre articles though! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)just to be clear - yeah, I think they're worth a prod....

I approve PRODding this one. No evidence of notability. That someone found it interesting might be interesting elsewhere, but it's not reason to keep the article. The question about the overspecialization of genres is a different matter, one I've wondered about myself, but chosen not to look into closely. There do see far too many... ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

coolio - I'll prod this (and consider prodding the other 'walled garden' articles too, probably...) - now I've just got to remember how to! Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Menzies[edit]

Resolved

– still plan to work on Beaver before he heads overseas...

thinking a bit about it, I think it'd be fitting to try and help 'Beaver' up to a decent standard - it's his last home game in a couple of weeks before he heads over to blighty (I don't think he realises how cold Bradford gets..... I reckon he'll be home in a fortnight!) - I'd plan on editing freely over there in a couple of days time to try and find ways to start improving it! Privatemusings (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What suggestions do you have? It's a BLP, so this month you need to outline your changes before making them. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan Carter[edit]

Resolved

– may have reached the limits of interest and ability here

Dan Carter came up 7th today on Random button (well actually the Disambig page which led to him) - the third BLP (!) - first two were stub.s though (Canadian academic, and Norwegian politician - her middle name was 'bugge', poor bugger..) - quite cool really! - There's an odd claim that he was the first chap ever to buy a Vista PC, which may need sourcing or removing.. and there's a bit of clean up possible, I'd say.... I think maybe the 'green light' to do this sort of stuff might be a good idea at some point.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good choice. :) Durova^Charge! 07:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

wow! - well whodda thunk it! I'll add it to the article in due course.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth is stranger than vandalism... Durova^Charge! 07:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What suggestions do you have? It's a BLP, so this month you need to outline your changes before making them. Also please keep each article under a separate subject heading ok? Adding the Vista ref is a great thing to do, of course. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, one suggestion I have would be to find a free pic of him that is taken from the front rather than the back. :) ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How about a return back here? Really, PM, I think you'd gain the most at this point by picking one relatively low risk article and building that up with a sustained effort. That's the way most of us gained our experience. Durova^Charge! 08:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit of a search for a freely licensed front facing pic (so Lar doesn't have to keep looking at his bottom!) - but unfortunately didn't get anywhere.... and to compound the problem, despite being a rugby fan, I've learned most of what I know about Dan from this article, so haven't immediately found many 'ways in' - I had a look in a friends 'rugby companion' book, but (again) unfortunately it pre-dated Dan...! I'll look again to see if I can clean stuff up a bit.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott_Mulholland[edit]

Resolved

– was a lead into more general discussion - perhaps still prod though?

2nd article up today (after a country house) was Scott_Mulholland - it's poor and needs significant culling and should likely be deleted. I would nominate it for deletion in 5 days as unsourced if poss.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I've hacked away at it a bit. Perhaps you can point out some sources here for the biggest leaps of faith in the article, and someone like myself can add them in. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

hey, it's good to see you here, John! - you've probably gathered that this is a sort of 'privatemusings improvement zone' - and any and all comments on all of the stuff above are most welcome! thanks for coming!

Re : that particular article, as I mentioned above, it came up through my clicking of the 'random' button - and I'd like to be able to edit in what I view as uncontroversial areas.... With regard to the content, I don't really doubt that Scott M was a promising young footballer whose career was sadly cut short a bit through injury - I've also been trying to form a consistent view about what to do about articles which have absolutely no sources... if my interest were tweaked in coming across such an article, then I'd probably start off with the 'ol Google searches, and go from there in improving the article... but if not (and I hope it can be taken absolutely without prejudice, that in this case I remain a little unmoved!) - I think it's probably best to nominate the article for deletion in 5 days and move on.. applying that tag to this article would be my suggestion - which I'm happy to talk about! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt let lar have all the fun. That article is now on my watchlist; it will not be deleted. :P Now, how can we improve it? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I would think a few sources would be a great start! - I rather suspect the painter Scott might even be a bit more notable? - Either ways, I'd probably start off by stubifying the article then - leaving only verifiable information from places like this - although the first result looks pretty good, the second is more par for the course unfortunately! - I'll bung a stub version in a subpage here when I get the chance to show you what I mean.... Do you think it's a poor approach to 'prod' such articles as you find them? - My feeling is that we're really far from coping at the moment, and, as I explain above, if I didn't feel I had time to expand / research an article, I would think a 'prod' would be the responsible thing, no? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)ps. I see you also got a bit caught up in the tony block wiki bun fight.... you seem to be keeping a cool head, which is great - lets hope it all calms down asap...

I like to keep articles, except when they are so riddled with violations of a persons privacy that the text/history should not be visible, except to admins. Deleting the work of my peers is a last resort. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you in spirit - but the possible consequences bother me enough to nudge me in the direction of suggestion deletion where sources are completely absent - can we be sure, for example that "Mulholland vented his frustrations in a heated meeting with Holloway which ultimately left his career at the club in jeopardy" isn't both untrue and potentially damaging to a future career? - and on another level, would it matter if "Mulholland continued at Woolwich Youth as a centre forward, scoring 211 goals in 5 years." was just completely made up? massively exaggerated? horribly underestimated? - unfortunately when dealing with absolutely no sources, you can continue in this vein for pretty much the whole article! (maybe!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed that, and added some sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

<- I've still got some concerns, jay - but an immediate extra edit would be to reword the first sentence... I think the implication of the past tense there is rather sad! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is hard - his club mentions that they dont know where he is playing now, on a page titled "Where are they now". Of course that source isnt reliable, and it only states the negative, so we have no acceptable/formal confirmation that he isnt currently playing football somewhere. I have slightly tweaked the intro to remove the worst possible connotation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

you've definitely cleared up the worst possible connotation, John! - Thanks! - I still have some concerns that we're stating that his career is over, when he's not yet 22.. we're probably right, but I'd hate for it to be in any way self-fulfilling.. how about 'who played professional football for QPR from x to x'? or somesuch?

also - the fundamental function of this page is not only to make small improvements to some pages.. but to gather feedback about my suggestions, and to evaluate my indefinite arbcom restriction in this area.... thoughts most welcome on that stuff too! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've done that tweak. I've been acting as your BLP editor here, so you can identify the problems, thereby demonstrating your own wisdom, which has been working well. I'd like to also point out that the more I have looked at this article, the more I have felt that a prod wasnt such a bad idea at all - not one I agree with, but I can see your sense in it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I still believe the article should be 'prod'ed - and I'll sum it up in this way; It bothers me a bit that in clicking 'Save page' you or I (in this case you!) assume responsibility for all content on that page - I don't really mean legally (though that's certainly the theory), but ethically / morally etc. If the confidence factor (say out of 10) for parts of the article is less than 6 or 7 then I'd say we actually have a responsibility to remove that information.... now how sure are you that Scott has ever even been to Woolwich? :-) - the smile is important because these views aren't really settled for me yet - I'd love to hear any responses..... Privatemusings (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that the risk is relatively low; even though there were some dubious aspects to the article, it was a pretty decent article written by an brand new user who was bold enough to do it under his own name: Thomas Gorrard-Smith (talk · contribs), who I assume knows the subject well, and is probably sane enough to realise that libel is a crime. I couldnt find any information linking him to Woolwich, but if it is true and he played well, there will be newspaper articles about it, or club newsletters, etc. Luckily for us, he also has email enabled, so I have emailed him to ask for more info. I probably wont point him to this discussion because it is a bit heavy on some other issues and I dont want to scare him too quickly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

< the cynic in me says that the info. may be too old to be chased up by now... but I hope I'm wrong! - given the tide of BLP problems that I feel we're facing - this little gem was 12th up in the Random button today.. first BLP - no way of knowing if the source is reliable, or if the article is appropriate.. there's actually a metric ton of these sort of articles which tells me that that's a whole other conversation that needs to be had - what level of sourcing is required for the statement that a woman starred in "Mrs Deep Throat"?! -- I wonder if prod=ing isn't actually the safest, most responsible option.

We don't really need to go round and round this one too much though - because I'm working on this page which will represent a bunch of pics suitable for eponymous articles, I hope! - this is actually an area I've always enjoyed contributing bits and bobs in - it'd be cool to get these guys into mainspace! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

here's an edit for approval.... (no biggie, I'd say...!) - we also may need to think about those citation needed bits in due course.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jayvdb approved of that particular edit, and for the record, I do too. It seemed like just a grammar tweak to me. ++Lar: t/c 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan King[edit]

The talk page is worth a review... (and I think my old-persona User:Purples acquits himself passably, though I'm not certain I would now take the exact same approach - all feedback about all comments there most welcome!).

The article in the third paragraph of this section states "He ran Decca Records twice" - review this section (and some sections just below it) for my rationale for why this should read "He was involved in running Decca Records".

There are also some interesting weight issues, and the article has some problems generally creeping in not-so-great directions.... following feedback on the above, I'm certainly prepared to create a subpage to demonstrate further improvements...

Once again, thanks heaps one and all for swinging by here... I'll re-factor as we go to try and keep this easily manageable, and if anyone has any questions at all, or other suggestions, please do feel free to pipe up! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ps.. this from the lead "His application for review has been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008." requires a source... Privatemusings (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to 1) find a reliable source which would back up this claim and 2) figure out whether the primary source is accessible. Bonus points for proving that the primary source is also unrestricted access, or bugging me to do that for you. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

hopefully this might be a possible mission.... this and this are sources.... although the later seems to be a bit more of sort of publisher of press releases than a reliable source.... and the Daily Mail... well... it's the Daily Mail! Perhaps more interesting is this scan, provided by JK himself to his message board - which I'm afraid kind of indicates to me that it may be more accurate to describe the case as having been 'received' (registered as a new application) rather than 'accepted' in a more meaningful way..... perhaps I should write them a note about my arbcom restriction?! ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that I have (again!) failed to fully pay attention.... I haven't answered your stuff about the primary source question... maybe there's a note on JK's site somewhere about the terms of use - I'll go take a look..... btw.. the decca thing needs review too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

hmmm.... the site seems to indicate that it's copyrighted to JK (understandably...), which I guess means that we can't copy it to wiki source or anything.. though it's probably still useful as something (I doubt anyone would question its veracity.. I certainly wouldn't...) - I should also add that I have no idea if my reading of the primary source has any merit at all... it would just seem to be a question worth asking? - IANAL and all that... Privatemusings (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The scan by the subject is a great find, as it gives the application number and document management reference IDs. ECHR-LE1.1R / PHA/gw / Application no. 46612/07 . "ECHR-LE1.1R" appears to indicate that this is a "Registration Letter", which should could give context to what stage it was really at in October 2007. It is easier to find good secondary sources if you understand the primary sources. I've no idea what PHA/gw means. Plugging away at the search form makes me think it hasnt gone anywhere, yet, and wont be for a while.

On the copyright aspect, that site and the subject do not have any copyright claim on the document if European Court of Human Rights explicitly releases their documents into the public domain, which is done by similar bodies, such as the {{PD-UN}}. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to find out a bit more about the status of the registration letter (which wasn't immediately obvious from the link above I followed, which is clearly the same text...) - my instinct is that it's possible the letter is sent out without prejudice as to the merits, or otherwise, of the case - but I don't have enough information to be sure at the mo - however I do assert that the sentence currently in the article should probably be removed in due course (maybe a week or two of 'citation needed'?) unless we can clarify stuff....

the decca thing remains a bit problematic too per the above, and the discussions on the talk page.... incidentally, I'm happy to look back on past editing as well as forward into the future - I think the arbcom sanctioned my editing at Jonathan King as being inappropriate and I recognise that a softer approach may yield better results. I'm interested in feedback on the twin issues of the 'disgraced' adjective, and the use of a judge's comments - not really the merits of what I was advocating (my position has certainly shifted with greater understanding) but more the problems with my methods - where the key problems are etc. :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

here's my proposed version. I've made many reverts and changes - and per my note on the talk page, all are discussed on the talk page of the article (in separate sections), and above (to a degree...) - I'm happy to explain stuff further here (or there) - and of course it's probably worth noting that this article was heavily reference in my original arb case, where my judgement was found to be seriously wanting... to a degree I'm reiterating the same (or similar) arguments, so I sincerely appreciate careful review.... thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

per the article talk - here's a better rewrite (read this post first!!!) :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(and there are still quite a few minor tweaks I'd like to propose.. but all in good time! Privatemusings (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

I'd definitely like to see the other mentors weigh in on this: a highly sensitive biography, to be sure. And since I'm not particularly familiar with the topic it's hard to gauge where the appropriate weight would be for this subject. Quite possibly not the best place to get started: gives me visions of taking a backflip off the diving board into a shark infested swimming pool...which is a slight improvement over taking a high dive onto a wet napkin, I suppose, but...um... Using blogs as sources is problematic. Per the reliable sources guideline, this site only accepts blogs as citations under very limited circumstances. We'll have to have a conversation on the details of blog citations, but as a general rule it's usually the case that in a biography about some person, the only blog that's citable is that individual's own personal blog. For the time being let's approach it this way: if you'd like to cite a blog, let's talk it over in advance. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 06:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I take your point about the sensitivity of the biography - on the other hand, I feel fairly sure that we need to handle all our biographies sensitively! In all seriousness - I never really felt that this was a particularly contentious bio. - but the nature of the JK's career, followed by his conviction and jail time does make a careful approach very important. The article has also had possible problems with what might be accounts with rather a particular focus. Anywhoo... it'll be interesting to hear all views on my revision suggested above.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)and your post also led me on to the following.....

I looked at your diff, above, and the changes seem reasonable enough, mostly toning things down and tighening text, but I'm not ready to approve it, because of the research required. I think I'm with Durova, I'd let this one slide a bit... try easier ones first, eh? ++Lar: t/c 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should come back to this one a bit further down the line... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

no worries - it'll still be there (and maybe it'll improve before then! hope so!) Privatemusings (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Giovanni di Stefano[edit]

Resolved

– the moth didn't get burned too badly...

John and Lar will be able to take a look at the discussion held around November last year about the addition to this article of a snippet of information concerning this youtube video. Basically I addded something along the lines of 'In October 2007, he applied for the posthumous pardon of Dr. Crippen' - I then mentioned on the talk page (something along the lines) that I thought this was an interesting, light hearted extra bit of uncontentious information (hence maybe appropriate under the 'self-pub' guidelines). I was met with very strong opposition on the talk page, and indeed arbcom linked to this edit (along with two others from an evidence section) when stating that I had edited BLPs inappropriately. My judgement in this matter has been continously questioned (I think most recently last week?) - and I confess in this quiet corner that I don't really understand all aspects of the problem with my editing in this specific instance...

Or to cut to the chase - I still think this fact is kinda interesting, and is a fun extra 'titbit', whose inclusion would be both uncontroversial and just plain fun! I'm most swayed by the 'weight' issue which may result - it would be interesting (for me!) to know if I mentioned that at the time? can't remember! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)by the way - feel free to just say 'moth - stay away from the flame!' - if you don't want to bite this off!

moth - stay away from the flame!

NYB explicitly said that, in regards to this specific topic.

I do not want my first arbcom approved mentorship to end sourly. :P John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

okey dokey.. subject dropped. (I blame Durova for bringing up blog ref.s which made me think of 'self-pub'..... ;-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jayvdb here. Stay AWAY from this topic. Please. Don't even propose changing so much as an a to an an... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What they said. Durova^Charge! 07:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Claire Verity[edit]

Fifth up today (2nd BLP, first article was a one line swedish politician stub) - this process in itself is giving me a greater understanding of 'where we're at' so to speak on the BLP front.... it continues to be a bit eye opening. Final sentence of first para needs to be removed, pending a source (now that actually is potentially libelous!) - sadly I'm aware that this article is largely accurate. Ref. 10 could be used for the first problem sentence, but to my eye a careful re-write may be neccessary.. in fact that's really what the whole article needs. This one would take a bit of time, and I don't think that right now is a good time for me to be touching stuff like this. I'll come back to it in a week or so.... Privatemusings (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also - and because we need to be careful - the section on controversial advice would need to be sourced to confirm that we're not bashing strawmen... Privatemusings (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, so no need to talk of libel, or removing text which is able to be sourced. Lets take this one over to Talk:Claire_Verity#"Truby King", as you're now permitted to edit BLP talk pages. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to push too hard or anything, but I think I might actually be able to edit the actual pages themselves too, under the trinity of wisdom duly appointed?! - I won't for now - we can clear this up in due course.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you can, but under our agreed upon three fold path approach (should I post that somewhere I wonder?), this month, you need to propose the changes first. Please be specific about what you want to change. You can do that here, or on the talk page, as you like (the talk page is a chance to engage with other contributors, but here is more "collated together"). ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll create a subpage for this one in due course, and try my hand at 'clean up'.... Privatemusings (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

< prior to subpage creation (which I still think is probably the easiest way for me to work, and has the same functionality as the edit / revert thing?) - here's a response for John, for the talk page; "My approach is based on the ideas of Fifties childcare 'guru' Truby King, a New Zealander, whose views influenced a generation of post-war mothers." - from this article (currently Ref 6 on the page). Privatemusings (talk) 05:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

/ClaireV.. for your delectation... I'd also like to consider nominating for deletion, because I have serious concerns that a balanced article might not be easy to either create, or maintain. I really only got my teeth into this one this afternoon, and it was in a pretty nasty state - almost vituperative... ugly, to be honest..... I'll continue to cogitate, but think the slightly more concise version I've suggested is a step forward..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

just re-read this, and felt I should maybe add a brief 'why I think this article should probably be deleted' thing... it relates to a conversation we had on NTWW, where (I think) User:GTBacchus said that at some point we may have to take responsibility for the fact that some times Wikipedia takes a few lights shone here and there (in this case some 6 or 7 newspaper articles with topical interest at the time) and wheels in these huge mirrors which amplify the lights (causing damage / heat / blindness! if you're inclined to wander down the analogy further...!) - in cases where the reliable sources available focus in one area (really this whole article is based on the controversial TV show from last year), I think we at least have to ask the question as to whether or not that can support an article... my instinct says, with the current culture here, probably not. (this is fundamentally a pragmatic view at this point, by no means a philosophical one....) Privatemusings (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

37 news hits, with no scholar or book hits. Based solely on the google test, this is a borderline keep for me, but WP:ONEEVENT plays a part - all the news hits are about the same controversy, and there isnt much to the story after all. Im too busy atm to fight an borderline Afd tooth and nail, so maybe now is a good time :-) I do like your version, for WP:WEIGHT reasons; I'm happy for you to replace the current article with your one; though, if you do, put your refs after the period. Other views on either course of action? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember off the top of my head whether or not I should wait for further green lights - p'raps I'll dig out the emails where this was discussed, and try and write something up somewhere here.... either way I'll hold tight for now - and to reiterate my proposed plan of action, it would be replace with my version, and nominate for deletion, with the rationale outlined above. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Benoît Cheyrou[edit]

Resolved

– one for the record really

12th up today on Random button... not a lot to say on this one (except that it reminds me of a football magazine in tone!) - clicking 'random' has become a bit of a habit, and it's interesting (to me!) what comes up! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a nice safe stub (sports figure, no known controversy). Do you have any sources for it? Durova^Charge! 04:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sharif Abdullah[edit]

Resolved

– will likely prod in due course

1st up in round two (or 13th up, after a pause and the above) - I'm afraid I'm gonna say that on balance, overall, I still believe that totally unsourced bio.s should be proposed for deletion (without prejudice). Privatemusings (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)...on the other hand, he may be responsible for peace in Sri Lanka, so I certainly don't want to upset or distract him :-) (this is intended with a light heart, so please don't infer any disrespect to genuine humanitarian efforts - it's certainly not intended!)

Prodding sounds reasonable. Note the edit history of the account that started the page. Durova^Charge! 04:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Gordon "Nobby" Clark[edit]

4th up today - this one's alright - except the details of recent legal action seem a bit boring - I'd cut them out as just plain dull :-) (I can provide a diff if you'd like, but it's fairly self explanatory!) Privatemusings (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Skip; someone thought it was interesting enough to add it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

how's about the application of a similar 'weight' argument as in CV's case above? (I recognise I'm shifting the goal posts, though you'll be familiar with my general unsettled feeling at having a third of an article dedicated to a fairly small article in The Scotsman....) - agree that this is no biggie though... Privatemusings (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you start by expanding Bay_City_Rollers#Financial_dispute with the details in Clark's biog. If you flesh that out, and dont find much else beside a single mention, then you can remove it from the biog. But then, not much is left - so while you are expanding Bay_City_Rollers, take a look at WP:MUSIC to see whether Clark's role in the bands early days is sufficient to warrant an article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

John Arthurs[edit]

18th up in round two (I think that's the longest a 'BLP' has taken so far!) - I'd prod this as completely unsourced per my thinking above - though it seems to be an entirely uncontentious article (per my previous discussion at the Scott section, we just can't know where damaging inaccuracy may lie.....) Privatemusings (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... the external link actually works as a source possibly... that's good news - but I'd still suggest culling the apparently uncontroversial personal information (wife and current career thing) as unsourced... Privatemusings (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably squeaks above the bar for notability for sports figures. Good idea about culling the unsourced personal info. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The unsourced material is still there... John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Daryl Bem[edit]

1st up today... totally unsourced - links to what seems to be a self-publishied website? I'd propose this one for deletion as not currently sourced appropriately, and not really a strong enough claim to notability to comply with policy in my book.... Privatemusings (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Claims to be an Ivy League instructor and the coauthor of a textbook. Might be notable enough to keep, but I wonder why it isn't sourced to the university website. Durova^Charge! 04:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He is listed as retired, and they have a CV for him. The Google Scholar results verify the personal publication list. Some of the articles are recognised journals, like Psychological Review, and quite well cited too. WP:PROF is the guideline here, and "Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs" being a textbook leaps out at me ... is it used as a textbook by more than one university? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Key[edit]

Not a random button thing - I was listening to the Mark Watson show this arvo and thought I'd take a look at the articles... this is both a note to self to take a look more closely at comedian's articles - which could be a bit of a can of worms (comedians having, you know, a sense of humour 'n all!) - also to point out that there's no reference for Tim being a future host of Crufts...... hmmm..... Privatemusings (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What did you have in mind for this article? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

my judgement[edit]

..I think at some point we're gonna have to consider having a bit of a chat about stuff from the past. I consider some stuff a bit unresolved, and I get the feeling others do too.... Very short term, I plan to restore this draft, not with the intention of joining, influencing or engaging in any aspect of content discussion, but really because I want it on the record that I take great offence at being accused of having written 'libellous content', and because I believe that it's all too easy to allow a false 'general impression' to take root. I can wax lyrical about why I think this is important, personally and for the project - but would like to start with the restoration of that page for sunlight's sake.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to have a powwow with the four of us, if everyone's willing. You started my Skype habit. ;) Durova^Charge! 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so keen on voice but perhaps a chat via Google (or IRC, I know 3 of us use it for sure) amongst us? Because I agree some sort of a quick taking stock might be good. Timezones work against us of course... ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and corner John in the next few days, and suggest a suitable time - my window opens around 23:00UTC and goes for 7 or 8 hours - I should be able to find half an hour or so in there with little trouble. I'll pop another note in here when I've gotten a bit further :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Google's fine, or Skype text. Durova^Charge! 07:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nikki Craft[edit]

9th up on the random button (and I felt I'd better do something useful after the above :-) ) - this article's had a pretty interesting time of things on wikipedia.... no edits to suggest, but I wanted to make a note, because I'm still looking at the BLP thing in broad terms, and this is an interesting one.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, yes. I'd really like to see you take one of the simpler pages such as a sports biography up from stub or start to B-class first. Or as an alternative, perhaps try the biography for someone of about this level of controversy who is no longer alive. Durova^Charge! 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh, what makes this interesting? What needs to be done to it? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Ferguson (Australian politician)[edit]

some problems with past tense stuff here! (as with many articles here) - I plan on doing a whole bunch of uncontroversial clean up in due course :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This one looks like a possibility. No major scandals. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixing tense and other uncontroversial changes will be fine. I've watchlisted it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Filing away done ones[edit]

Do we need to file away items that were proposed, acted on and now you're done with? Or, in the end you decided not to pursue? This sort of archiving I think is not something a bot can do easily but I do think this page is getting a bit cluttered, I'm not sure where things stand on some of these. Thanks... All in all I think we're doing well here... ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do a bit of a tidy, but do quite like the 'to-do list' aspect of this page - I agree there are limits though! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've marked some as 'resolved' with a little note, and will probably move them into a different page in due course? - I need to go and remind myself of what I am allowed to be editing at the moment too - my 'better to be safe than sorry' approach may be overly conservative at this point.... perhaps we can confirm where we're at in that regard? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Danny Weidler[edit]

This one's a bit of an emergency.... serious attention required. Privatemusings (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What does it need? pop a diff and revert and I'll take a look. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

here's a better version, I think... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ps. - comment about my behaviour in stub.ing etc. also most welcome... I guess I just wasn't sure if anyone was around, and thought this was the best thing to do? Privatemusings (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you did. You went from that reeeally bad version down to a one sentence, then back up to a bit more info (but supportable from solid references), then back down to one sentence. I've approved your intermediate version by reverting back to it. And stubbing it down to nothing was the right thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

looking through a bit more, this seems to be one that a semi-protect would have avoided... it's my view that we should semi-protect all BLPs immediately (as well as offering an 'opt-out' to non public figures). It seems to me to be depressingly hard for this idea to gain traction - is there anything at all we can do to move towards something like this? - otherwise I think we're just all waiting for the inevitable external wake-up call. bummer. Privatemusings (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)ps. I'm seriously struggling with weighing up whether or not Danny deserves to be notified as to the previous state of the article - advice appreciated.

A semi protect means that someone needs to wait a bit before they can fiddle, but it won't stop them. While it thus might help reduce the incidence of petty vandalism, I think really we need the version stuff that de:wp is experimenting with. That would reduce the incidence far more. As for telling Danny... the question there is what good it will serve. If you can articulate a good reason to do so, you should. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

have you noticed Wikipedia:FlaggedRevs fact sheet by any chance? - at least discussions are underway about flagged revisions - I'm not sure about timescales there though. When I read an article like this one, it's both a bit upsetting, and it supports the "we have to do something" argument" in my head. In terms of whether or not to notify Danny (whom I don't know personally) I just don't know what's best. For me there's a "would I like to know?" question, and given the possible tens of thousands of people who may have read the article in one vandalised state or another, I tend towards 'yes' - whether to the point of creating a moral obligation, I dunno... On the other hand, in conversation with various people about various other examples like the above, I've been consistently asked to 'keep this quiet' - generally because of the perceived damage that could be caused to the project (reputation, future funding, etc?) - I think it's fair to say that australian journalists' articles have been problematic previously. I also think it's fair to say that Danny has a pretty thick skin (he's vilified / mocked by sections of the media down here regularly - but that's another story!), so don't really want to kick up a stink - but I'm concerned that we're practicing a form of security through obscurity here with people's lives, and it's simply not sustainable. Is it a function of a volunteer culture that we can't encourage enough people to attend to the ugliest problems facing wikipedia? Maybe - but there's none so blind, right? <end rant!!>.... feedback / comments most welcome, 'cos I'm really unsure of what's best here.....) Privatemusings (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I know flagged revs is running on de:wp. didn't know how far it had gotten here. That fact sheet is promising. Who's telling you to keep things quiet? Not me. All I was saying was that I wasn't sure there was value in telling Danny but if you think there is go for it. ++Lar: t/c 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

< the 'keeping quiet' was related to another matter completely - and no, I certainly wasn't getting any 'keep quiet' impression from you :-) Sounds like we're both not sure! - I'll continue to cogitate........ maybe I'll try figure out a way to propose flagged rev.s gets turned on too - I think there will be significant unintended consequences, but we'll just have to cross those bridges when we get there, I guess - particularly if the current situation is untenable. Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

just a bump to note that problematic editing resumed, and I have re-done the edit previously 'approved' by Lar, and dropped a note into the talk page... review (and extra eyes!) most welcome Privatemusings (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

moving forward[edit]

p'raps we should bring the conversation about current mentoring status and recent events 'on wiki'? (i guess I mean in terms of discussing 'next steps' etc.) - I'll try and find a bit more time to put my thoughts in order :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

John Ogden (photographer)[edit]

How's about I create this, and try and get to as high a standard as possible :-)

Today's paper
multimedia bit
ArtsConnect page
ABC details (with link to mp3)
( + more)

I'm actually pretty excited about this thought! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)ps. I'd be tickled to be able to make the very first edit on the page! - silly, innit! :-)

this should be listed at John Ogden too..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)note to self

it's my understanding that I'll need express permission to begin work on this one - so here's a smile and gentle hint :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)discussion on anything most welcome too :-)

Sounds good. I've watchlisted it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

< - well things are progressing nicely on this one... it's brought together a few thoughts of mine, and I'm working on it offline a bit at the mo. I've touched base with JO, and had an interesting conversation about wikipedia in general, as well as his life and work (and pointers to 'reliable sources' of course!) - I'm in no rush, and also am a bit wiki-busy with other stuff at the mo.. being rather pleased and proud to now be helping the ChapCom - there are ropes to learn! I've committed firmly via email to focus the terms of this mentoring programme on developing the above article - and don't really know if that means we should dot the i's and cross the t's of the 'official' arb matter too? It'd be cool to bring the correspondence on-wiki if poss. :-) - thassalfernow.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I had wanted to hold off creating the page until I'd had the change to catch up with JO, but felt it was necessary to show some evidence that I've been 'working' (I don't this this is entirely cool... but on balance I've mellowed a little on the 'should talk to subject ahead of time' front, and feel there's a net benefit to be had by posting where I'm at) so there we are! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

the wonderful wiki process has begun :-) - it's great to see tidying and clearing up already :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Debito_Arudou[edit]

I think I could help out here a bit, and am minded to begin editing the article and the talk page... would that be ok? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What changes did you have in mind? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll begin at the talk page, and see where we go... my intention is to be very sensitive, and careful. Privatemusings (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Green Light[edit]

what'd be cool is a green light to edit as I feel is best on all the articles above? Hows does that sound :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The original plan was that in your second month we move from a preapproved mode to an outline, get an OK, and go forth and do it mode. So originally I would have said yes. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

well I'm certain to be happy with unoriginal permission ;-) - I guess I'm looking for ways to grease the wheels of this process - I think we may be able to improve on the whole 'edit, revert, post diff, mentor's respond, edit is / isn't made' system.. so my suggestion is to 'green light' specific articles only at this stage - in much the same way as the John Ogden (photographer) article has been explicitly given the 'go ahead' above (has it? I'm planning on editing 'live' on that one pretty soon! - it'd be cool to confirm with all mentors that that's ok :-) ). If the concern is that there are too many articles above, hows about picking a couple? (Claire Verity, for example?) - let me know your thoughts... Privatemusings (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see some traction on the articles you have asked us to look at. Stop hitting the random button; start hitting the edit button! :-) If you have run out of clear direction, ping my talk page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I love the lights! - thanks heaps for going through everything jay :-) - I'll kick start some green light editing, and 'proceed with caution' on the yellows (or is that prepare to stop? either way... I'll tread carefully there.... I'm also aware of how effective wiki-red-light-cameras are, so will avoid temptation :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)I will however try and catch up privately with you on something related-ish in a bit :-)

Orange means it is about to change to red unless you clarify what edits you plan to do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

gotcha.. I've edited at a couple of oranges above, and welcome feedback :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

bumpy path[edit]

we've hit a rough patch in this process, with problems due to my activity levels not really meeting expectations... I think we'll be chatting this through on wiki soon, and looking for the ways forward.... Privatemusings (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

reading through the emails, the formal mentor arrangement may have fallen over, and is possibly over, with some fairly wide ranging criticisms, primarily focused on my lack of experience. Maybe we're at a fork, maybe we're not, but I would sincerely like to edit unencumbered as soon as possible. I think it's probably time to try and write up (finally!) some of the matters which may have been confused - so here's my take on the status quo;

Arbcom lifted my sanction and appointed three mentors for a period of three months
The mentor's expressed a desire to 'reset the clock', and I expressed a desire for mentorship to focus on BLP issues alone
Exactly when and how the 'official' mentoring period ends is unclear to me - is a further arb motion required to extend, confirm, or remove the restriction permanently? I believe the arb.s would allow the restriction to pass with the proviso that there be 'no further issues' in the three month period. I think we've hit an issue or two, so quite where we go from here I'm not too sure! - Hopefully my restriction will lift permanently without further arb comment three months from the date of the arb motion - that's what I would like :-)

feedback most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My advice, though you've no reason to rely on it, would be to voluntarily extend the period of mentorship with the understanding that it and its terms are voluntary - i.e., not imposed on you by arbitration or a community consensus. I think you can only benefit from mentorship. Obviously you don't need anyone to teach you how to think, or how to identify needed improvements for an article, or how to write within the MoS etc. What you will benefit from, though, is the long experience of your mentors in editing within the expectations of the community. That is the area of concern, and I think it would be in your interest to be able to say that you had a full and complete period of mentorship and exited it with the approval of your mentors. Avruch^T 23:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

you're most welcome here, av :-) - wise words, and thanks for taking the time to swing by... I agree that there are plenty of positive ways forward from here, and I reckon with a following wind we'll find them :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings, I think the best thing you can do right now is to focus on article space. Particularly, focus on one article at a time and really bring it up to the next level. I'd love to see you get a GA. And if you take that as far as a good article candidate during the mentorship, start doing the same thing to a second page. As long as that gets on track and stays on track, the rest will take care of itself. Durova^Charge! 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna try and get John Ogden as far as I can :-) - and should be able to get some images next week sometime. I also want to get much more meat on the bone in terms of his work, and am hopeful on that front too, following early research and conversation... feedback at this stage is most welcome of course :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

still working on the above - but I think I've got a bit more material :-) - still getting to know GIMP and linux a bit, but hopefully some more soon-ish..... Privatemusings (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)I don't think I've had much feedback on the article yet? poke me freely if I've missed it!

End of the Road[edit]

My mentorship has ended at the request of my mentors, which I feel is a great shame. Here's my message to arbcom, and mentors for the record;

Hi all,

(and sorry about the partial message before! - I think my hands slipped on the keyboard...)

I'd like to thank all of my mentors for the time they gave to the process, which is much appreciated. The wiki record of our work is here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/A_walk_on_a_path_in_a_garden

I feel the premature end of this process is a great shame, but understand that my mentors are not willing to continue. Sorry guys.

Durova had some very specific ideas about what I should and shouldn't edit (and I'm still gonna get John_Ogden_(photographer) up to GA if I possibly can!) - I'm sure we can continue to work together where our paths cross.

Lar has been very busy elsewhere, but always available when I popped into his talk page, and has dropped me some firm emails where necessary.

In particular though, I'd like to thank John, whom I have had by far and away the most contact with in this process. He has taken time to talk through entirely unrelated issues on IRC, has always responded almost immediately to my requests at the path page, and has offered concrete, substantive advice on many content issues. I particularly look forward to working closely with John in the coming months as the Australian Chapter gets off the ground. For being willing to be exasperated, cajoled, frustrated, and made occassionally grumpy in the name of helping me out; thank you, thank you, thank you!

I'll copy this 'on-wiki' because I think it's best, and wish to reassure one and all that my face is in fine fettle, and my preference is for open discussion where possible. I hope my editing restriction can be allowed to lapse at the three month point from the previous arb motion, and am happy to have any sort of review of my edits in the BLP area, or across the wiki-verse in general (or anything in between!).

best regards,

Peter PM.

ps. (not sent via email) - my plan is to continue to wiki gnome a little in the manner I have been doing for ages now - I think I'm helping out, and certainly learning, and enjoying myself whilst working on some articles :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much to restate my e-mail reply, I'll be very glad to see you continue to move forward with that GA drive. Ping me as needed there. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Rugby League Players[edit]

I'd like to gnome away on articles from this list... so am asking for a green light there :-) - there are many sensible tweaks and improvements, I think.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a big list. Pick a few, and briefly outline what types of changes your considering. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll show you with a few (it's nothing major) and see what you think... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

you get the idea :-) - the edit most worthy of discussion will be to Anthony Watmough I think... Privatemusings (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the controversities from Anthony Watmough is a big bite. I suggest you chew on it for a while before taking another bite. news like that is often reported about sports people. Is there a policy on that? Is there a Wikiproject discussion about it; check the archives. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

we're at the 'discussion' stage on the talk page now, and it'll be interested to see how things progress... there's no archive on the talk page, but I'll sniff around at the wiki project, as well as talking things through on the talk page... Privatemusings (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

<- moving forward ok - discussion is happening :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)