User talk:Tyrenius/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Vote for deletion/Ultimate Guitar

Journalist ^C./^{Holla @ me!}

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website)

Hi, regarding your vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website), could you expand on where to merge to? Thanks! — TheKMan^talk 05:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, Sorry I don't know enough about White Rose to suggest where to merge. Other people have commented on that. It seems with Ben Burch by the looks of it.... Tyrenius 05:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh ok, thanks again! — TheKMan^talk 06:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Admin Splash

Hi, I noticed your comment on his page. He has deleted my images without due process even when I had them clearly tagged as Fair Use. His reasoning of why they were deleted was completely wrong. He has been unwilling to even apologise and holds his ground on this. If I can have your support I'd like to raise an RFC against him for this. Thanks, GraphicArtist 01:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC is means "Request for Comments". When two or more people have grievance over an admin abusing power (eg deleting images would be one) one such can be filed and it allows for interested people to comment on the issue. GraphicArtist 01:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a link to the RFC. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Splash. Click there and read the statement. If you agree that admins should not go through a process before deleting Fair Use images add your name where it says Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Thank you GraphicArtist 02:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images info

That particular image had been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for (much) longer than 7 days, and was unchallenged. In those cases, it's a call by the admin on whether we can claim fair use or not. In this case, the comment that came with the image (and which is still visible on the talk page of the former image) claims that, since it is the full image and in high resolution, we are unlikely to be able to make a FU claim. Generally, for such things, we'd insist it be low resolution so that it could not be used for any reproduction purposes. That's part of the deal in fair use; that and not using more of the material than we must for the commentary we are making on the image. The current image in the article, I don't think meets any of the 3 bullet points in the tag you mention and is also high res and the entire image. It should probably be examined for a copyright problem. It is true that there are many questionable images on Wikipedia; the best we can do is tackle them one at a time — and, like most admins, I take the view that we should minimise the project's exposure to legal difficulties. -Splash^talk 01:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is certainly low-resolution, especially by comparison to the pictures of paintings we were talking about. However, the commentary in the article (which, incidentally, is about the person not this particular work, thus weakening a fair use claim) is pretty minimal, so I don't personally think that it fits any of the bullet points on the tag. Also note that it is not a picture of a two-dimensional work and so the tag is not applicable at all. If you were writing an article about the genre or the piece, then the fair use claim would be much much stronger. -Splash^talk 03:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason there is a two-dimensional tag is that there is a US (Supreme?) court case which establishes that simply reproductions of two-dimensional works is not copyright infringement (approximately; I am not a lawyer). There is no such court ruling for 3D works. I'm not going to remove the image(s) myself, but I do think the fair use claim would be much stronger if you could write/find an article about the genre or add more commentary on the work/genre to the artist's page. -Splash^talk 03:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't really think the question is an RfC matter, but there we are. -Splash^talk 03:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wasteland

Hi. Thanks for asking about the reversion. Earlier today, an anonymous contributor was adding LibriVox links to a host of articles. It was starting to look like spam, so I asked the editor to stop and reverted a few of the ones I felt were inappropriate. I removed the link from the T. S. Eliot article, but it can still be found in the article for The Waste Land. If you disagree with my edit, feel free to re-insert the link. Hope that clears things up. - EurekaLott 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I was just kidding anyway. Cheers :) --Quadalpha 20:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I pick my battles. --Quadalpha 22:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transition Gallery

No, actually what happened is that I pressed the wrong button, as I was trying to revert an edit on Thomas Jefferson, and your edit pushed the RC feed upwards without giving me a chance to correct. :) Sorry about that. It should be fixed now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conceit

I'm not sure what you're going for there, so I thought I'd ask. You've created a bunch of very short sections. Are you planning to fill them in? If so, not a problem, and I'll stay out your way. If not, it might be better not to divvy it up quite so much. Let me know what you're planning, if you would--thanks. Chick Bowen 01:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

A very good point. I've refactored it again; what do you think? Chick Bowen 01:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saatchi Gallery

Hi, I wonder if you can help out. I have posted extra information on the Saatchi Gallery and it's been deleted 6 times by two new users whose only contributions have been on the gallery. They remove valid information about the history of the gallery, and seem to want to make it an announcement board for current gallery activities! Tyrenius 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tyrenius! I'll look it over and see what's happening. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliot and Prejudice

Hi, Tyrenius. I wasn't the one who removed material from this section of the Eliot article. Mine was a very minor edit, as you can see here Rrburke 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cquote

I noticed you changed the comments about Freeze by Saatchi on the Saatchi Gallery article from a blockquote to a "c quote". It looks pretty, but I'm not familiar with it, and wonder which circumstances it should be used in. Thanks.

Tyrenius 05:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's just that, a prettier alternative to blockquote. Here's a list of pages that use it – a relatively catholic mix of historical biographies, computer game articles etc. I imagine the only inappropriate use would be in an article on a particularly sombre or serious subject, where it would probably be judged to be too cartoony. I like the template, but feel free to revert if you feel it lowers the tone of the article.

The list of exhibitions in three columns was likewise just an aesthetic tweak, and I think it will look better when the list is more complete. Regards, Ham 13:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Fitzgerald

Thank you for all your work on that page. I had been meaning to put the references in for a while but you sort of forced my hand, and that was a good thing.

And I appreciate your point that the anon editor who put the POV and cleanup tags on in the first place used the wrong tone. While the way I responded is not one of my prouder moments on Wikipedia, I'm glad that someone sees what got me upset. You took a much better, contructive approach (I've also had something going for a while in Talk:New Coke where I wish one well-meaning editor had used a gentler, more civility-friendly tone (and, it's not reflected on the talk page, but he started the whole thing off by completely blanking the offending section without much explanation save "nonsense" in the edit history)). If I could award you a barnstar here, I would. Daniel Case 15:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware that the possibility of moderation exists; however, that should be a last resort after every attempt to work the situation out has failed. I didn't think we'd reached that point over there ... it helped that everyone just backed off for a while. Daniel Case 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For your timely intervention that helped smooth things out at Jennifer Fitzgerald. 16:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you earned this (I had always thought only admins could give these out, but I guess not) Daniel Case 19:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Barnstar for modern art

I award you with the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your many and varied contributions in connection with modern art and artists. - Solipsist 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I award you with this barnstar for your many and varied contributions in connection with modern art and artists. Its not easy to be objective, but you manage to walk the line! -- Solipsist 00:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

I have added two more questions to your RfA, when you have a minute I'd appreciate if you would answer them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on your RfA

Tyrenius, on your RfA you raised a number of issues regarding the votes on your RfA and their relation to policy. In particular, you note that Wikipedia:Administrators says "...who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." You then proceed to take issue with the opposition votes as being in violation of policy because in their opinion you do not meet those standards. You've noted that they are in violation of policy for having standards that are too high.

With all respect and politeness, you are in error with regards to your statements that these editors are in violation of policy. The policy that you quote is subjective in nature. There are no hard and fast rules that state "You have 1000 edits. You are automatically made an admin." Let's look at the sentence in detail...

"active [on] Wikipedia for a while". There's no statement of what "a while" is. Some editors think three months is enough. Some think one year is required. Most lie somewhere between. Even further within this, people often do not count months where you are not particularly active. You made your first edit using your account in August of 2005. But, you were not significantly active until January. Some people weigh that against you. This is not a violation of policy in any respect.

"a known and trusted member of the community". How do you evaluate known? How do you evaluate trusted? Both of these are highly subjective. Some of the means by which we do so are looking at a user's contributions and seeing how much they have contributed to areas of the project outside of the main namespace. Many editors look particularly at an editor's contributions in the Wikipedia namespace. In your case, you have just 19 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. This suggests a distinct lack of experience in policy. This directly relates to your trustability; if you don't know policy, how can we expect and trust that you will execute policy properly? Another area related to this is talk page contributions in all namespaces. How much have you engaged others in meta discussions? Here you have more edits to your credit, with about 17% of your edits being on talk pages. But, if you had less people might feel that you aren't experienced enough in wikipedia debates to be known and trusted. These are clear subjective means of evaluating a candidate.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards contains standards that are very old. Many of the people whose standards are listed there are no longer active on RfA, and some not even active on Wikipedia. I have argued extensively in a number of places that that page is a serious problem and should be updated somehow or removed entirely as it is quite misleading. However, please understand that that page is not policy. It states so very clearly at the top of the page.

I readily grant that too many people on RfA are overly absorbed in edit counts as a means of judging the worthiness of a candidate. As you note, a person making a single edit can make massive contributions with that one edit (for example, my creation of the article on Paul Cayard [1], while a stub sorter can make a tiny contribution with one edit (for example my stub sort of Groomer [2]. One edit does not equal one edit. Edit counting for evaluating someone has been a long and contentious debate that offers little chance of resolution in the future because any objective approach to it will be arbitrary and gameable. I've done extensive work on this issue, and have fought long and hard against m:Editcountitis. As it relates specifically to RfA, I've done a study that shows that 2,000 edits seems to be a magic number beyond which the chance of success of an RfA goes up dramatically. Have a look at this explanation and chart. Barring any tool that measures the kilobytes of contributions a person makes, edit counting is going to remain a tool people use. Even a kilobyte measuring tool would not be a good tool because it would be attempting to objectively evaluate something which is inherently subjective.

Nobody has violated policy in voting for or against you. In fact, they've rather adhered to it by evaluating you with respect to the policy you quote.

If you'd like to discuss this more, please feel free to respond to me. --Durin 14:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• BTW, I don't see that anyone has pointed this out to you, so see: the mailing list discussion of your comments (unless you are already on the mailing list, obviously). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

(responding to comments left on my talk page by Tyrenius)

• Mainly because anyone can give a barnstar for any reason at any time. There's no standards. I've received barnstars of which I was pleased and ones that I was totally confused about. They don't matter for much. Their main purpose is really just for one editor to tell another that they are doing something right. But, that's not always the case.
• When I do a nomination for someone, I do take the time to review their edits, looking at how often they've done reversions, their distrition and rationality of votes on AfD, reviewing every user talk page edit they've made for evidence of incivility or lack of understanding of standards, and much, much more. I've nominated seven people, with six of them being reviewed against substantial standards that I developed for nominations that I make. All seven have been successful. Unfortunately, doing one of these reviews takes a minimum of two hours. I just don't have the time to do that for every candidate I see up on RfA. As a result, my standards for voting on RfAs are lower than for nominating, but I still take time to do them. Mostly, by the time I could get around to do them the fate of the RfA has already been sealed. I never vote just to pile on as it's pointless and wasteful of time.
• Few people have the time to do a serious review as above. As a result, they fall back to the next best tools that are available to them. What they are doing with edit counting isn't wrong per se; most people are just doing the best they can with the limited tools and time they have. Some people just vote to vote. Regardless, there's not much we can do to change that.
• RfA as it stands does a pretty decent job of filtering out candidates that really aren't suited to the job. Flipping that around, it does a somewhat good job of promoting those that are ready. In some cases, it does a poor job in that area. But, to correct that, people can apply for adminship as often as they like. Thus, if the system fails once, wait a month and it's likely to self-correct itself. --Durin 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockism barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar. Regards. --Muchness 04:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Talk:Business_Plot

Talk:Business_Plot#Thank_you_Tyrenius_for_your_input . Travb 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for letting me know and for removing the vandalism. I've blocked the IP for now; if he comes back, let me know. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What I've been doing lately with school-boy vandals is trying to catch them while they're active, and then blocking for a short time. My hope is they see they can't edit, get bored, and wander away. If he persists, then I'll block longer and call his network administrator. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up after him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same problem with the same user

This is what I posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion

• United States presidential election, 1900 same user, Rjensen. He is deleting several paragraphs of referenced material, stating it is POV. Last week I came here for third opinion before, on Talk:Business_Plot#Third_opinion, he simply moved his fight with me to United States presidential election, 1900, using the same tactics.Travb 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry you're having ongoing frustrations. However, I think that it's getting to you a bit and you're reacting too personally. I did say stick to the facts, but you've put a section on the talk page for the article headed with the name of the person you are having problems with. That is confrontational, and is bound to get the opposite reaction to the one you want, though I'm glad to see that you paid a compliment for Rjensen's good contributions. Let's assume he/she does have some genuine concerns. Somebody else wouldn't maybe, but the fact is that he (I'll say he) does. He says the tone is totally POV. Well, I don't think there's any smoke without fire, and the way to meet someone in those circumstances is to tone down what you say and let the facts speak. For example:

:Misleading Philippine War claims by the Republicans

OK, in the circumstances I don't think you're going to get away with the heading, unless you give a specific reference to it, with a footnote quoting the source and the text of the source as well for that specific statement. You could simply change it to "The Phillipine War", which makes it perfectly NPOV. The text should bring out all that's necessary.

:Conservatives ridiculed Bryan's eclectic platform.^{[citation needed]} In order to give the impression that the Philippine war was winding down,^{[citation needed]} the McKinley administration made misleading claims of reductions in the number of American troops in the Philippines.^{[citation needed]}

I think in the current circumstances each of these points need to be nailed down. As it is we only have the fact of one soldier's words. Well fine, you can say this soldier stated such and such and no one can contest it, but it's the interpretation preceding it that is open to challenge. If you weren't be challenged then your references are fine, but as you are, it is your interest to be scrupulous about them! The footnotes can also have extracts of relevant text included in them, as footnotes often do in books, or the passages could be quoted on the talk page.

I suggest an initial way ahead would be to to quote a passage on the talk page, with source, and then put underneath the words you intend to put in the article using that source. That gives third parties a chance to judge and maybe help out. Laborious, I know, but that is the penalty of collaborative work.

Get back to me if you want to discuss things further. I will add it to my watchlist.

Tyrenius 00:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, you are a great peace maker Tyrenius. Excellent suggestions. I am going to be gone this weekend, but may get some time to revise the text next week. Thanks again.Travb 17:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The White Stripes

Hello! I just wanted to make you aware that I reverted your citation edit to the White Stripes article. Not out of maliciousness, but it just wasn't correct code. To familiarize yourself a little more with the footnote coding, you can visit here. It's a little tricky, and I'm just getting comfortable with it myself recently. If you want to add references without the coding hassle, just use the standard [www.website.com] coding, and skip the reference tags altogether. Happy editing! --Esprit15d 19:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godfrey Blow & Stuckism

Thank you for your comments regarding my contributions to the above pieces. Yes you are right, I am new to Wikipedia and finding it difficult! A friend is giving me some assistance otherwise I'm sure I would still be lost. If you have any tips I would be very grateful. There are a few exciting things coming up regarding the Stuckists. In October an exhibition called "Triumph of Stuckism", organised by Naive John,will be held in Liverpool, part of the Liverpool Biennial and features several Stuckists from all over the world. Details of their show can be found on the Stuckist web site at wwww.stuckism.com There is another Stuckist group called the Newcastle Stuckists featuring the work of Graham Wilson and there are also several Melbourne Stuckists I think are worthy of mention.

On another topic it seems a shame that there is not an article on the late Peter Fuller. Just been reading one of his books.

Best Wishes,

Vera Hutchinson.

[edit] RE: A vandal you warned

User talk:207.127.74.2, whom you warned about vandalism on 15:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC), has struck again, at Marvel Comics on 6:10, 17 April 2006. I thought you'd want to know. I reverted the vandalism just now. Thanks -- Tenebrae 21:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Michael Hill

Copied from my talk- "Well done on the search - it wasn't apparent from your vote, and, yes, the key words are all on google! I was concerned about the votes before mine. I know one should assume good faith, but there seemed no indication that other people had done any research before casting their vote. I am concerned that the statistical emphasis on RfA, for example, encourages quantity over quality on these matters. Tyrenius 17:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"

Yes, quantity over quality is very important. I was annoyed at my self for misssing out that search combination (+ knife) for I tried a number including pasting large sections of the text into Google. Some of my response in the AfD may not have made sense, WP:W was suppose to have been WP:V - Again quality. Thanks to you and PaddyMatthews for finding that it was verifiable.--blue520 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of places in Kent

Hello! I have been interested in the interplay about this article, and your comments. However, although I agree in principle with your sentiments, and the comparison with Cornwall, it ought to be realised that in comparing the sparsely populated county of Cornwall with Kent, the latter will provide rather more "places" than the former. I invite you to look at the list here - there are over 400 of them! I am also putting forawrd a comment to the powers that be about the ubiquitous use in Wikipedia of the word "place", which in my mind can be a very woolly idea. How big (or indeed small) is a place? I quoted one 0.9 km² area in streetmap of a relatively rural area in Kent with eight "places" (two hamlets, four farms, and two isolated houses) on it.

Where do we draw the line? Peter Shearan 13:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying Xeni Jardin RfC

[edit] Kickstart70

Hi, thanks for starting a new, clean RfC section for this...I really don't want to interfere with that, but I wanted to make it clear that I am not necessarily saying specifically that xenisucks.com needs to be included in this article. The issue, and the major point of debate between myself and Motor was whether a blog can ever be a cite, as the claim made was that blogs can never be reliable. I'm concerned that the ability to provide an "example" (and just an example, with no expectation of expertness) is lost in this. The first non-involved response seems to vindicate that this point is lost.

Link to my statement which I really was hoping to leave as-is and not have to followup, so as to let independent editors decide on their own. Unfortunately that got further lost in the turmoil.

Anyway, I'll stop here and on the Xeni Jardin talk page, I really don't want to unduly influence the outcome. Thanks again, --Kickstart70-T-C 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have no problem with receiving such communications. I agree with your point, and actually made it myself just before your statement that you referred me to. I'm keeping an eye on the discussion. Let's see how it pans out with some more responses. Get back to me if you want. Tyrenius 02:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Having an administrator ripping out content from this disputed page is not going to help this get resolved. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kickstart70, re. your note to me on the above - you can see the rationale. I suggest you take it up with the editor if you feel that will do any good. However, I think the only thing that will do any good at the moment is for the involved editors to back away, and to allow others who are not involved to advise and act, as per FCYTravis. He has a point. Tyrenius 07:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the new FYI section, I wrote this, which I now remove and put here: Interesting...I, for one, would accept the retaining of the criticism section but restricting the info on xenisucks.com to the NY Times article cite. Regarding #3, yeah, it is a concern, but as with other troll-ridden pages (ie. Gay Nigger Association of America) the section should not be restricted just because the subject is unpopular or targetted. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jokestress

I have read your comment that you started editing Xeni Jardin in the first place as a non-partisan editor, and have noted some of your edits such as this one that have been helpful towards a NPOV. I would be interested in any points that you might have to help me towards a fuller understanding of the issues, as you've obviously been involved in it, and in particular how you think the article should be framed now, bearing in mind all the heated debate. Tyrenius 02:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in that RfC. When I came to this article, my goal was to source all statements carefully for two reasons:

1. The article subject has been a little cryptic about her early life and inconsistent on dates. I have run into this in the past and find that the best way to handle that is to make notations (as I did with her birth date).
2. The article contained a criticism section replete with weasel words. Rather than remove the section wholesale, I requested citations from editors who added them.

Most of the editors involved are authors or fans of xenisucks.com, and most of the citations they supplied were from there. I commented that the xenisucks.com site was neither notable nor especially useful, and suggested we remove it.

That's when all hell broke loose. The xenisucks author started attacking me there. [3][4] The editors here began linking and referring to those attacks. Two people claiming to be the authors (Mnsharp and Mr. Quicksilver) opened Wikipedia accounts and began referring to the offsite attacks. Several of the participants have contributed primarily or exclusively on this article and have been a hindrance to consensus and productive discussion. I have been accused of being a "supporter" of the article's subject, though I had no idea who she was when I came here.

It's pretty clear that a small number of people with a strong POV have camped out on this article, and many of them are being unconstructive in bringing this article toward NPOV via reliable sources. If you're interested, this article is part of a larger discussion on off-site personal attacks. Thanks again for joining the discussion! Jokestress 03:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jokestress. I've replied to Dstanfor on their talk page. However, can I take it that you consider the criticisms as currently included are imbalanced and POV editing? I've suggested they are better dealt with in the Boing Boing article. Tyrenius 05:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the major issue is that the citations are non-notable. If I started an anti-blogger blog today called KosSucks.com or CharlesJohnsonSucks.com, I don't think my site would meet the notability criteria for blogs. XeniSucks.com is something like six weeks old. It's not even one of the top quarter-million internet sites. It's fine with me that people dislike Xeni Jardin, but their criticism hasn't really risen to the level of notability yet. Jokestress 05:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re. notability of Xenasucks - we're not assessing it for its own article, just whether it is relevant as a minor aspect of another article, and that requires a much lower criterion. The fact that Xeni Jardin has (apparently) commented on it, certainly makes it valid for inclusion. My main concerns are whether this article is the right one - as opposed to Boing Boing where criticism is not even mentioned - and also to achieve a balance. See my reply on Dstanfor's talk page. It will be interesting to see what the RfC brings up, if its left to its own devices for a while. Tyrenius 06:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As jossi pointed out, this seems to be the guiding principle for Wikipedia citations of this type. I imagine Jardin's mention was because she had not encountered this kind of thing before. Most risk assessment people would say that's a big no-no, as acknowledgement tends to escalate the behavior. Jokestress 06:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your reference is what I am going by. As to Jardin's motives for comment, or the wiseness or otherwise of doing so, that is not our business. The fact is that she did. Tyrenius 06:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, my original response here was solicited by Tyrenius, and I was not involved in "having an administrator ripping out content." I don't think Tyrenius was, either.

Tyrenius, I brought this matter up on the mailing list. Perhaps you can link to the discussion in the RfC section on the Talk page. Some interesting responses there:

• Mailing list
• (Scroll down to "Criticism sections on bios of living people")

Thanks! Jokestress 03:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read through all the comments on the mailing list. However, I can't find a clear consensus on some of the problematic points in Xeni Jardin, beyond what is already stated in WP:BLP, which is still open to a degree of interpretation. What struck me from the posts is that the only reliable answer is a consensus from well-intentioned editors, and I think we must strive to bring out the best in all involved editors in order to achieve this.Tyrenius 04:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an emerging area of policy, which is why I find it interesting. In this case, a couple of people involved do not appear to be "well-intentioned," as they are engaging in personal attacks on other editors offsite and linking them here. I see this as a test case for a lot more of this in the future. Since I am staying off that page for a bit while third-party people take a look, can you add a link to the mailing list on the Xeni Jardin talk page? Several of those editors have been here a long time and have dealt with similar issues in the past. Thanks again for stepping in on this! Jokestress 05:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there has been some undesirable conflict and an element of PA, but we must seek to draw a line under that and start afresh, so all editors have the chance to base themselves on a "well intentioned" stance. I think that any that do not take this opportunity will be shown up clearly. I don't want to add a link on the Xeni Jardin talk page at the moment to the mailing list for various reasons 1) it starts off addressing negative action, which only brings it up again 2) it doesn't provide a clear consensus which can be directly applied 3) the key interested editors are watching this talk page and can see the link here anyway 4) I want to start a new initiative on a sub page (in preparation) 5) it is an indirect posting from an interested editor, which might be seen as unfair by other interested editors who have refrained from commenting under the suggestion for a 5 day breathing space. I hope you feel this is justified. If it becomes particularly pertinent, then I certainly will post it, and if resolution is not reached, then you can bring it into talk yourself. Tyrenius 05:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

User:WAS 4.250 has quoted Jimbo, so I've put up the Mailing list link to give the full context.Tyrenius 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The only question I would raise on your consensus proposal is if the Greasemonkey filter is more of a Boing Boing article element. If I recall, there are other filters for their content (I think there is one for Cory, too, and a "safe for work" filter) that might be better discussed together. Beyond that, I believe your proposal is reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to draft it. Jokestress 07:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to both articles, but more to the point is the attempt to find a middle path between editors. I'll stick with it for now and see what other responses there are. Tyrenius 07:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motor

I would just like to note here that I replied to you once with the link to the article at xenisucks.com. Once you reminded me that trying to discuss this with impartial commenting editors was inappropriate... I stopped. Later, I responded to already involved editors because I wasn't aware that was inappropriate. If it was, then I apologise. - Motor (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Motor, thanks for your note. I can only make suggestions, and thanks for responding positively. I realise at one stage you were addressed directly, so it was appropriate for you to answer. I don't know if the RfC is still live, but if not, I suggest you renew it. Tyrenius 08:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: proposal to build up a copy. Thank you for trying this, but I thought I should let you know that my objections are only to the use of unreliable sources in a biographical article, and the seeming insistence on linking to anonymous blogs and a non-notable site set up by someone with a grudge. If the subject is eventually not considered notable and the article is deleted because people can't find enough material to justify one... that's outside my interest. Personally, I'd just redirect it to BoingBoing. - Motor (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your stance, and obviously that is an issue that needs to find a resolution. In the meantime, there is an opportunity to assemble more data (I am not proposing a copy). As I'm sure you know, the article was proposed as AfD and there was a unanimous keep consensus, so I can't see it being deleted.Tyrenius 07:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposal for consensus

I'm not willing to accept the xenisucks.com link on Xeni Jardin.

Looking at the overall picture here: we are trying to write an encyclopaedia biography. It is supposed to accurately and fairly reflect a person's life and career. Criticism is fair game for inclusion if it is reliable, notable and verifiable. However, certain editors appear to be going looking for criticism, and unable to find any from reliable and notable sources, are falling back on a junk site like xenisucks.com and anonymous blogs. This is not the right approach for creating a balanced and fair encyclopadia article. It is the illusion of balance fuelled by the misguided idea that you must dig up some dirt/criticism in order to be fair.

Editors have claimed previously that because xenisucks.com was given a small mention in a NYTimes column, and mocked as the work of a The Simpsons-style Comic Book Guy, that means it is required in this article. This is clearly not true. There is no credibility associated with the website. Mentioning it in this article at all is a good example of the illusion of balance that I described above.

Xenisucks.com is about as notable, reliable and verifiable as a drunk on a street corner incoherently rambling about a celebrity. Just because a newspaper columnist mocks it in a minor mention as the "Worst. Hate. Site. Ever" does not give it any credibility -- no more than if a columnist mentioned that he had passed by the previously mentioned street corner drunk. Would everyone suddenly everyone demand that it be mentioned in that celebrity's Wikipedia article? That bit of the column is not even "criticism" of Jardin. It is criticism of the website and the man running it. And just because someone acknowledges the existence of a web site about them doesn't give it any credibility either.

This argument is given even more force from: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I do realise that you are working to try to get a consensus and break the dead-lock, and I want this matter settled as much as anyone, but we've got to have higher standards than including links to people with grudges and personal web sites just because they managed to get a newspaper columnist to laugh at them once in a small section of his column. - Motor (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Motor, thanks for your note. I've got to go out now, so I'll reply later. In the meantime, you might like to think about making the points using more moderate language. It's not that I mind particularly, but I don't think it will help your case in the long run. Feel free to amend or delete and rephrase, or leave if you wish. Tyrenius 07:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The above statement wasn't aimed at you. I am merely stating my view of this situation, and of the activites of previously involved editors judged from the talk page of Xeni Jardin and its archives before I even began editing the article -- including their behaviour, views, arguments and the off-site intimidation that has gone on. My comment is here because you requested comments here, not on the page you created: If you do not agree, then please communicate with me on my talk page about it, not on this page.. The only thing I consider less than moderate language is describing the owner of xenisucks.com as a "jerk" -- which I will remove. - Motor (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I didn't take the remarks as aimed at me, but thanks for taking the trouble to make sure I had read them correctly. There's something that's getting lost in the smoke here, namely that the current edit and my suggestion for consensus does not actually make any criticism of Jardin. It says that a web site has been set up which makes criticisms of her, which is a subtle but important difference. That is a fact which can be verified with an acceptable source, and that is how wiki operates. This is not an assertion of the site's notability; it is an assertion of the NYT's notability. It is a record of what the NYT has seen fit to put into the public domain.

Jimmy Wales has commented specifically on this case to answer a question on it:

Is a "(Xeni)sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?

Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog, into wikipedia as "critics say..."

I'm not quoting Jimbo as some ultimate authority, but as someone whose opinion should be taken seriously, and, furthermore, because I believe this is likely to be a position supported by a consensus of other neutral editors. You do of course have every right to dispute this, but it should at least give pause for reflection.

The key points he makes, which I have adopted in my consensus proposal, are 1) mention is in order 2) the reference (i.e. notability) is the NYT, not the site 3) XeniSucks' criticisms should not be quoted.

The standard we have to maintain is NPOV, which means putting to one side our personal feelings, which are OR. Your argument is that XeniSucks should not be mentioned because it is run by people with a grudge against Jardin. There is no wiki guideline that per se which bars such sites from being mentioned.

There is a Wiki guideline that material should be balanced. I feel that the layout of the current edit creates an imbalance which gives too much prominence to criticism, and have attempted to redress this. Without the heading "Criticism" above it, the NYT/XeniSucks mention will not be emphasised in the way it is now, but will be integrated into the flow of the text.

Furthermore we are working towards a consensus that will ensure more biographical content is provided before any more criticism is included. This will render the NYT/XeniSucks mention much smaller in proportion to the whole. A good way to minimise its effect is to contribute more material, and there is an invitation to compile this on a sub page, so that it can be added when the protection is removed. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to this.

Your stance of strong disagreement with any mention of XeniSucks is noted and on record. I invite you nevertheless to agree to my proposal, as it will then form a consensus which enables more content to be added to the article, which I think is the priority. You are welcome to add a note by your name that you strongly disagree with the mention of XeniSucks and wish this to be reviewed at a later date. This would then mean four editors have agreed to a working solution for the time being. If this can be achieved it would be an accolade for all concerned.

Tyrenius 01:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Site link

i.e. that there should be no further or future action to bring this about to give XeniSucks any more prominence than it already has, and I think this is valid. -- I put my name to the proposal with the proviso that no external direct links to xenisucks.com would be used in the article -- including notes. Your proposed article has a link to the NYTimes column. I disagree with doing this and believe there are good reasons why it should be removed, but for the sake of moving forward I conceded it. However, I'm not willing to give in on linking directly to the xenisucks.com website from this Wikipedia article. I thought I'd made that clear. I apologise if I did not, or if I have misunderstood your comment to me. - Motor (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I did misunderstand your point. However, Kickstart70 is not going to contest it, so provided other editors are of a like mind, then we should be able to proceed on that basis and not use note 9. However, please see that note 11 mentions XeniSucks but does not link to it. Your requirement is fulfilled. The link is to Boing Boing and an article by Jordan herself. She is the subject of the article, and it is a link to what she has chosen to say. I would be grateful if we could move on from this point. Tyrenius 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance

I asked Kickstart70 to explicitly confirm whether he was ok with it. He hasn't answered yet. I wasn't comfortable moving it myself until I had heard from him. The only remaining thing I have an issue with is that the page still states: There should be a link in the Footnotes or External Links to XeniSucks.com.... even though my acceptance is conditional on that not being the case. I have absolutely no doubt that the moment protection is take off this page, an IP user will reinsert a direct link... and would like it to state explicitly that the consensus was "No direct links from this Wikipedia article to that site." -- unless, of course, the consensus page isn't going to be kept as a record and was merely an informal chat page. - Motor (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've copied the 'consensus' text from the consensus page over to the Jardin talk page. Kickstart70 has already agreed to the point you want, as in the following exchange:

Accept, with the following provision: that the text "XeniSucks.com" is not made into a hyperlink, or a note with a hyperlink. The link is to the NYTimes... and that its inclusion at all is subject to review at a later date. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not going to argue this point, but it certainly is a weird and uncomfortable situation to link to a news article about a website, but not link to the website itself. Some sort of false protection. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable considering Motor's "acceptance" to be an acceptance. I think accepting a consensus is more than writing the word "accept", followed by text indicating a lack of acceptance. His text speaks much more strongly than the word accept, and I propose that we consider his "acceptance" to be anything but. - 63.107.91.99 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This was a good faith negotiated consensus. My provision was added and "accepted" by the other editors (as were provisions made by other editors). The page you see is the final accepted consensus of those involved in the dispute. - Motor (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it seems so. I hadn't read the entire text when I saw that, in fact, the provision was being met. It's a minor quibble, and a pretty funny semantic one, but if it keeps the peace, so be it. - 63.107.91.99 16:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think all the material on my pages needs to be either copied across or linked. I'm not sure the best way to do this at the moment. Any ideas?

Re. any anon IP violating the consensus agreement: this will not be acceptable, and I think can be rv. immediately. Admin assistance will not look favourably on a consensus of this nature being thwarted.

Tyrenius 18:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It's starting to look like your services might be needed again, re: Xeni Jardin. - Motor (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glowimperial

I'll just pop in here and say thank you for getting involved in this rather pesky issue. I've seen your edits around here in the past and I look forward to seeing your further take on the matter. Glowimperial 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page re. above and my participation under RfC. I hope that a gap of a few days might help to take some of the heat out of this, and also some more outside comment, if that is forthcoming. If you have any suggestions, I'd be pleased to hear them on my talk page. Tyrenius 16:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dstanfor

from Jokestress talk page:
Pardon me for butting in. I think the main issue we're dealing with is that a set of editors wants to include criticism of Jardin's work on the page, but are having a hard time finding cites for the criticism that another set of editors believes are reliable. Part of this difficulty revolves around the fact that Ms. Jardin is mostly notable for Boing Boing, a blog she co-edits, so most of the criticism appears on other blogs. Xenisucks.com is the focus right now because it's main focus is Jardin parody and criticism. Dstanfor 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

from Dstanfor talk page:

Hi, I've noted your comment on Jokestress's talk page. I'm a little concerned that "a set of editors wants to include criticism of Jardin's work", as there doesn't seem the attempt at a balance, i.e. praise for her work to be included as well. However, my latest thought as on the Xeni Jardin talk page, it that her work on Boing Boing is best discussed in the article Boing Boing, where the blog criticisms would sit more easily. Tyrenius 05:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Putting the boing boing criticisms on the boing boing page does make a lot of sense. Good point. I think getting the LA times given title 'Wizard of Blogs' listed on the page was praise, but it could be considered pretty thin on the praise side. Thanks for helping us work it out. Dstanfor 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dstanfor, we are nearly there. I propose a "rabbinical solution" to fulfil 2nd para of point 4, namely via footnote 11. This mentions XeniSucks. It is actually a link to the Boing Boing site and an article by Jordan herself all about XeniSucks. It also has a link to XeniSucks which Jordan has posted. I would like your agreement to this, as it will enable things to move forward. Tyrenius 08:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 66.92.73.52

Xeni Jardin: Temple of Me Blog
It's a shame that the criticism of Xeni from the Temple of Me is being cut. It's a good criticism, delivered a lot more politely than most of Xeni Sucks. What's the rationale for saying it's outside BLP, but XeniSucks isn't? In your consensus section, you point out Xeni suggesting XeniSucks helps her career, and the NYT finding it noteworthy... Is it the external mentions that helped it rise above the standard Temple of Me dodged? - 66.92.73.52 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just applying wiki policy as in Verifiability. There's no way in a contested edit that a blog like Temple of Me is going to be accepted by a wider editorial consensus because of the policy, which is why an admin has already circumvented the article protection and deleted it. This is completely regardless of whether it's true or not. The job of a wiki editor is not to find the truth as per the policy of no original research, but to present what acceptable sources say is the truth. The NYT is regarded as a "reputable source" of information. If the Temple of Me criticism was quoted in a NYT article or in a biography of Jardin or by some equivalent third party, then this would be considered adequate verification. Tyrenius 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Domoni

I appreciate the work you're doing here. For the most part I agree with your edited version of Jardin's article, but I have a couple of questions I hope you could address.

As the sole publisher, editor, writer, and photographer for Temple of Me I completely agree that the website does not meet the current standards for Wikipedia Verifiability. As is stated "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

I am confused though how this does not apply to many other online and print publications. For example, Utne was founded by Eric Utne and effectively self-published for years. Unless I am mistaken it still is family-owned. Could Eric Utne's early self-published editorials and articles be cited? I would say Utne Reader is citable as it runs articles through fact checkers and peer reviewers.

Boingboing itself is self-published by its writers. They do not have fact-checkers, nor are their articles peer reviewed. Certainly boingboing should not be cited for anything other than as the personal website for the writers.

Lastly, the proposed Jardin article includes information gleaned from the website Suicide Girls. The Wikipedia article for Suicide Girls states "The site is privately co-owned by Steve Simitzis (server admin and SG user, "s5") and his wife Olivia Ball (site programmer and SuicideGirl)." How is the SG website concidered a "reputable news organization?" Again, how is it published? Does it use a staff or independent fact checker?

While I completely understand that Wikipedia wants to maintain guidelines I fear that popularity is sometimes mistaken for verifiability, respectability and notability. domoni 13:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Domoni, the bottom line is that Wiki is run by consensus, not by rigid application of policies and guidelines. However, when there is a disagreement, the policies and guidelines do come strongly into focus. This can certainly create the result that something which actually contains sound research is not allowed, while something with dubious (or even false) information is considered to be from a verifiable source and therefore retained. This is addressed in WP:Verifiability. It is up to individual editors as to what they want to use and cite, and as to how they judge what is acceptable and what isn't, so as to your questions about specific cases, I don't think there is a final answer. Wiki is full of inconsistencies in many regards. If you want to cite something, I suggest you do, and see if anyone disagrees with you. The best practice is sound editing by good editors from a NPOV. In an ideal world this would not lead to any disputes. I hope this helps. Tyrenius 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I hope you don't mind a couple of other questions. This isn't a case where I want to cite something, but where I don't see consistency in what has been considered citable.

Please allow me to add a bit of background you might have missed: I came into this discussion when my website was cited by someone else. I logged onto Wikipedia and asked that the information not be used based on what I believed was a set-in-stone policy regarding information gleaned from websites.

Pulling the cite based on the policy was fine, but as a former editor and current freelance writer I am very interested when an Wikipedia admin calls one of my editorials a "random bit of defamatory bloggerel." I've asked that admin for an explanation of his opinion, but haven't received an answer. Please understand that I am not asking about citing to include my site, but because I read the policy as saying other information should be excluded.

Your answer helped a bit, but I really thought WP:Verifiability was a policy: "There's no way in a contested edit that a blog like Temple of Me is going to be accepted by a wider editorial consensus because of the policy, which is why an admin has already circumvented the article protection and deleted it."

Verifiability states: "If the article is about a living person, remove the unsourced material immediately if it could be viewed as criticism of them." But unsourced material that is praise or neutral is kept? Doesn't this lead to unbalanced articles?

I believe the key is that Wikipedia must have a standard for "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Is that really expected to be a personal opinion for each editor?

Finally, in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject." I don't see how "should never be used" could be any clearer. Based on that, all information on Jardin solely referenced by websites should be excised from the article.

Thanks for spending the time helping a new editor benefit from your experience. domoni 00:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Domoni, if it's any consolation, I would not classify what I've read on your site as a "random bit of defamatory bloggerel", as I think it makes a challenging observation.

You are right: Verifiability is a policy and hence carries considerable weight, as it has been agreed by a consensus of editors, and is almost certain to be upheld by a wider consensus of editors in any issue which involves it. Unsourced material is equally invalid for criticism and praise, but it is more important to remove the criticism immediately 1) because we are considering the effect on the human being who is the subject of the biography and wish to be responsible in this 2) because in extremis it could lead to legal problems. The emphasis is always on a balanced portrayal of the person. In the case of someone who was generally regarded as a despot, then a balanced view would show far more "against" them than in their favour.

Re. the standard for credible sources, the policy gives some clear indications, but, as I've mentioned before, this is subject to consensus and has to be judged in context on a case by case basis and according to the editors involved. It is not just a matter of opinion, nor is it necessarily a rigid rule. Ideally it should be a matter of commonsense and sound judgement. Wiki policies are not equivalent to a national legal system—see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering.

Re. "information on Jardin solely referenced by websites should be excised from the article". The reason anything of that kind is in the article, is because an editor put it there, and no other editors have removed it or challenged it. That's consensus. If you feel it should be removed, you can do so, as any editor can, but please read WP:Point first.

There's another good rule too: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

Get back to me if you want to discuss further.

Tyrenius 07:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lost.goblin

(copied from Lost.Goblin talk) I came into the discussion on the above via a RfC. The situation was a stalemate and the page was protected. After a considerable amount of discussion a consensus was reached by the 7 editors who participated in the discussion (6 signed and 1 said he would respect it). This was so the the article could be unprotected to enable content to be added. The purpose of the article as clearly stated in BLP is to be about the subject's life, not mount an attack on that person and the criticism was imbalanced. The page was unprotected by an admin with the following note:

This page is now unprotected. For the record, I won't allow users to ignore concensus. I added this page onto my watchlist and I will make sure concensus is respected. Send me a message if you have any problems. :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you disagree with the consensus and the way in which it was reached, but nevertheless it does exist. I would like to ask:

a) will you respect it despite your disagreement

b) do you intend to ignore it and edit regardless

c) will you try to achieve a different consensus, but respect it until you do.

An important part of the consensus was that xenisucks.com would not be linked from the article directly, but would be mentioned, and there would be a link to the boing boing page where Jardin writes about it. I suggest that the way forward is to add good verifiable content to the article about the subject's life.

Tyrenius 00:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I would opt for c), but given the length of the arguments in the relevant article talk page I don't have the time or energy to follow such discussions. While I disagree with the "consensus" I think that after your last change at least the current article is not outright misleading.

I think it would be a good idea if the "consensus" was displayed more clearly and prominently in the talk page. I still have not figured out where it has been agreed that making the string "Xenisucks.com" a link is not acceptable, and why, this is not a big issue for me, but it is hard to argue about something that is so hard to find (sorry if I didn't try hard enough) --Lost Goblin 01:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree can be difficult to find the consensus, so I have posted a summary at the bottom of the talk page. The final consensus was that there would not be a link, but that the presence of xenisucks would be retained and a link to the boing boing article by Jardin, where there is a link to xenisucks. There were two extreme positions: 1) that all the "anti" Jardin stuff should be in with links and quotes etc. 2) none of it should be in. Both sides have given ground to achieve a working solution.

Jimmy Wales commented specifically on this case to answer a question on it:

Is a "(Xeni)sucks.com" blog a notable or reliable source?

Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog, into wikipedia as "critics say..."

This is the basis of my proposition which was agreed in the consensus, as I believe it would be the one upheld by any wider involvement in the matter.

However, the important thing is to add to article content, which still isn't happening in a big way. Tyrenius 03:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Good Work, Tyrenius

Tyrenius, thanks a ton for your work in actually reaching consensus on this page. I hardly believed it possible! - 63.107.91.99 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your afd vote

I think you're really making a mistake on that afd. There's no proof that the group even exists, so WP:V is being broken.--Urthogie 18:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] specialist admins

Is there a discussion of this idea somewhere I could read? I think it's an idea whose time gas has come. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Dlohcierekim 03:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conceptual art

Hi - I removed the stuckism link since that has a wiki page, Stuckism. See Wikipedia:External links. I originally just changed the external link to the wiki page, but since it's in the external links section I removed it. There's a whole anti-c.a. article section, where it's mentioned. If you think it really needs a callout link, I think it'd go in the see also section. OK? - Clubmarx | Talk 03:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, both of us have our favourite subject as art! I see your point about Stuckism and normally I probably wouldn't have put in the link, but certainly in the UK they are such a publicly recognised voice against conceptual art (they're always getting quoted in the press), I thought it would be useful to have a hotline through to their site. Otherwise it means going to the Stuckism article and then finding an external link there, if anyone wants to follow it up. I didn't want to put a wikilink in the See Also section as that is covered in the article, but if there isn't an external link, maybe it should go there as the current wikilink is from an adjective (Stuckist) not even the name of the group. However, I'm not going to get into a fight about it, and now I've given my reasons, I'll leave it to you to do what you think is best. Tyrenius 03:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello - yes, good to see someone in the art category! I too don't want to get into a fight about this, but I'd like to remove. The journalist would need to be lazy not to look into the references and other links. There's a news story link and a reference link to stuckism.com. So many articles have many links and pages start to look like dmoz, thus my tendency to trim whenevery possible. Clubmarx | Talk 06:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, misunderstanding there. My point is the general reader will have heard about this group through the press, not that journalists will be looking in wiki! I'm a little peturbed that a general point ("so many articles....") is being applied to this one, to which it doesn't apply as it doesn't have a lot of links; also that it now means the only "anti" external link is to a self-confessed humour site, while the Stuckists are nothing if not serious in their campaigns. However, although I don't agree, I will not actively oppose. Tyrenius 06:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA note

Just a quick note about the RfA for Zpb52; I noticed that you voiced a concern over his response to a question about an anon; he's since revised that answer: [5]. Thought you'd like to know. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. Unfortunately, I think Zpb52 has just dug himself a bit deeper into the hole. I can't support an admin nom, when I (as a non-admin) have to point out the correct action to him. Tyrenius 04:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rmrfstar's RfA

First, let me thank you for your support. And I appreciate your note and link to that discussion; it's nice to know that others feel the same way about the issue as I do. Unfortunately, popular opinion is not with us. Now what do we do about it? We should, I think, express our opinion of the situation more formally, for we truly have fallen from our original ideals of who should be an admin (represented in Wikipedia:Administrators), a philosophy that is especially appropriate now with Wikipedia's great popularity. Now RfA only accepts users who fit the cookie-cutter model: a user who spends half of his time on AfD and patrolling RC... any ideas? -- Rmrfstar 04:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] questions and updates to Joseph Pisani, Artist

Hi Tyrenius, I saw your comments on the Joseph Pisani page and have added some of his recent exhibtions. I know of more exhibtions, particularly in the East Coast, US region, but don't have exact specifics on them-they are much harder to locate since they go back quite a few years (mid 1990's...) Also, I was wondering what you had meant for a picture. Are you looking for a picture of the artist himself, or pictures of some of his work? I have found a few of both, but am not sure about the copywright on them so have withheld them until I can find out more.

Thanks a lot for your comments. 83.78.178.175 07:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Araripe

Thank you for your initiative on the Oscar Araripe article. Although he obviously wrote it himself, it was also clear to me that it belongs here in some form. I was going to do the same thing today, because I feel that artists of many media are underrepresented here. Regards, Aguerriero (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Tyrenius/Archive 1, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support. Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent van Gogh

Wow that's pretty bad. I've put down my support. So far we've reached the 80% consensus, so go ahead and put in the request. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 01:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius: Van Gogh is now on my watchlist, which I hope to frequent daily until summer begins (and I move into the internet-less mountains). I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for your tireless help and concern. Scoutersig 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

I have opened a discussion at WP:NOT based on the debate we had over the game manual clause and its aplication to the page Structures of the GLA. This link leads to the debate. TomStar81 01:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. BTW, my userboxes do tend to conflict with the layout on low res screen; the same problem also occurs on a high res screens ;) TomStar81 02:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Andrew B. Campbell/"Articles for Deletion"...

As you seem to be one of the more decently enightened and culturally aware people out there in the Wikipedia diaspora...I thought I'd drop you a line before I retreat from all of this and - in the manner of Duchamp - devote my time to chess. Had I realised that my innocent attempt to make a contribution to Wikipedia would have resulted in a plethora of bitter and twisted remarks...(Re: "articles for deletion")...then I would not have bothered to contribute in the first place. However - since the work of the artist in question seems always to have solicited controversy...(including - I gather - numerous death threats from various right-wing bigots and other such censorious philistines)...I find myself confirmed in the belief that the artist must be doing something right...(albeit in the tradition of such "subversive" art often being completely misunderstood)... Nevertheless - my thanks to you for your own more positively helpful and artistically aware input. I'll leave the rest to the judgement of of history...

[edit] Sources

• Sources/References: Exhibition Catalogue: "A Space Oddity" (Group Exhibition @ A22 Gallery, London EC1/ Exhibiting Artists listed @ "Hugh Allan/Andrew Campbell/Peter Blake/Rob & Nick Carter/Mat Collishaw/Angus Fairhurst/Damien Hirst/Rachel Howard/Gary Hume/Abigail Lane/Langlands & Bell/Sarah Lucas/Gavin Turk/Tim Noble & Sue Webster/Jane & Louise Wilson")... Catalogue / Quotations / Reviews :Louisa Buck/George Melly @ [..."Summoning up the Colony's two profane patron saints, Francis Bacon and Muriel Belcher; Andrew Campbell's art charts the demons of his benders"...] Photos / Reviews / Articles / Ref: Florian Danke / Colony Room Club Artists / Conde Naste / London Standard...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mostyn"
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mostyn (talk • contribs).

Re: Article etc.,

As mentioned previously – I hadn’t counted on my innocent contribution Re: The Artist - Andrew Campbell - being met by such a cynical and – quite frankly – offensive...response from a bunch of people who blatantly know little about art. I am obviously new to this game at Wikipedia – and am not at all sure if I want to contend with any more cynical remarks from these editing-zealots. However – since you seem to be of a more discerning and decent disposition...with an honestly genuine understanding and sympathy for contemporary art...I thought I’d at least present a few more words which may or may not be of interest re: the aforesaid article...(no specific or “notable” references here I’m afraid – just some 'esoteric' information by way of elucidation)...since I have a distinct feeling that the editors may yet be hearing more of this artist beyond any proposed deletion of the contribution. With thanks – for your own magnanimity... M.

It may need to be said that Andrew Campbell is a very difficult artist to categorise or pin down – not least because he has in the past had an infuriating propensity to operate under various obscure pseudonymous guises and identities...often submitting his work into areas and artistic arenas not normally associated with the “contemporary art world”.

Though he has indeed exhibited work alongside his contemporaries from Goldsmiths et al...he has more often been known to subversively slip such work into a municipal show full of “Sunday Painters” - or place complex exhibits under a dazzling variety of disguises onto various tacky websites – often alongside garishly amateur and kitsch representations of poodle dogs and gun toting cowboys.

Such deliberately provocative antics have often led bemused critics to dismiss Andrew Campbell’s work as being marginalized or even “Anti-Art”. However – a closer inspection of the artists motives might perhaps lead one to concur with his own declared intentions of reaching a completely different perception of what the value of art is...and in turn - challenging and questioning exactly to whom its purpose and effect is to be directed and thus ultimately be understood...(the corollary of all this artistic subterfuge has often meant that the work has either been overlooked, censored, rejected...or on some occasions has led him to receive actual death threats due to the often “transgressive” presentation of the work)...

It may indeed be the case that the artist in question is a somewhat difficult candidate to place in any conventional list or art encyclopaedia. What cannot be overlooked however – is that the work itself possesses a profoundly moral potency...further questioning the way in which the world is perceived through art today.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mostyn"
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mostyn (talk • contribs).

With further reference to this debacle – I took the liberty of attempting to contact the artist in question and bring the Wikipedia confabulation to his notice through his official website. I received this response entitled: “Missing the Point”...

Subject: Missing the Point.

"Andrew Campbell's work is not - nor has it ever been - about making any
'claim to fame'. On the contrary - it is about seriously questioning the
very concept of 'fame' and 'celebrity' - in an age where such shallow
considerations often obscure the true meaning and importance of art. Should
any further confirmation of the artists 'credentials' be required - then one
might perhaps look no further than the walls of the Colony Room Club in
London for enlightenment...or perhaps even - the floor therein."

Quite an amusing reply for those who may be acquainted with the London art scene – which might very well say all that needs to be said...for it does indeed look as though certain editors at Wikipedia are perhaps more preoccupied and obsessed with the aforesaid concept of “fame” - rather than having any genuine understanding or receptivity to the intrinsic merits and meaning of contemporary art. It may indeed also be well were I to now leave any further judgement to those better equipped in the arcane twilight world of Wikipedians...and to those few decent people out there – like your good self – who do actually have a real appreciation and true insight into the complexities of the art in question...since I for one am not prepared to subject myself to any further trite frivolity and ignorant abuse - from certain self-appointed arbiters of this fame game.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mostyn"
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mostyn (talk • contribs).

[edit] Junpei Satoh

Why did you take out the list of shows from this article? It was from the artist's website. They are the only claim to notability, apart from editing one book. If there is nothing else to add for this person, it will go to AfD because he's not notable, which is a shame because the paintings have some quality. If you can establish his notability, please do so. It also needs some verifiable references. Tyrenius 00:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it must have happened when I was rewriting the article into English. I think the original "English" text was machine translated. I've added them back again. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Sams

Thank you for supporting the retention of this page. I went to a great deal of trouble getting info--and then along come a posse of consisting of an 18 and 21 year old americans who declare it isnt 'notable'. There shameless ignorance knows no bounds. Lentisco 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

Sams may be notable, but there many many many people whom have placed the pieces together in history, they might not be worthy of their own page. I was troubled by the extreme lack of information flowing around. When, I asked for notability, Lentisco harrassed me and tried to intimidate me. Yanksox 12:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In case no one has noticed, I reversed my vote yesterday. Lentisco did not make it apparent that the article was legitimate. NOw other people have expanded it and I find it acceptable. But he just presumed and didn't list anything out. Yanksox 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I maintain anything deserves an article as long as notability is established and not presumed. And thank you for being kind, calm, and helpful. Yanksox 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I appreciate that. In the future I might recommend you read the discussion if you didn't do so, as on May 9th I linked to an Alexa comparison between Imageshack and photobucket which showed its traffic level being in the top 100 sites. --Crossmr 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ImageShack AfD

Hey, no big deal. It's not like I have any vested interest in the ImageShack page (or the web site, for that matter). I just wanted to make sure all of the facts were broadly- and very clearly- presented in the AfD discussion. It's all good. -- Kicking222 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Very much! Rich Farmbrough 16:33 22 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Deletion Sorting for Visual arts

Thanks for creating this page! I need some help with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Visual_art. I'm not sure which page to put the sorting tag. I tried with Category:Art_supplies but it's not working. Do you have to manually add the item to the the visual art deletion sorting page? Clubmarx 18:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems items have to be put on the page manually at the moment. There is an idea for categories to do it automatically, but it hasn't reached that stage yet. You won't be able to put a Category that's up for deletion on it. You will have to put the page name as in {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video artists}}, except it will be "Categories for deletion". I went to the Art Supplies category page and clicked on the link to get the deletion page, but I couldn't find it. I wonder if it's been listed properly?Tyrenius 00:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for the info. I don't know what happened with the link to the Art Supplies discussion. But I added a hard link on the category page as a workaround. Clubmarx 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Note - "Category:Art supplies" has been merged into Category:Art materials, per CfD. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highway's RfA

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA, regardless of how you voted. I appreciate all votes. I am going to wait until I have more edits in all namespaces. (And also improve answering impossible questions ;). Hopefully one day I will be more sucessful than it was looking, once I meet most user's voting standards. Again, thanks for your time! ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel salomon

You stated that the AfD consesus on the above article was keep and move but only 2/5 people even suggested that action. It seems that the result of the AfD leaned more towards no consensus or to keep. --Strothra 00:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All 4 people who made recommendations did so for "Keep" and, furthermore, based on very substantial verification by badlydrawnjeff, which you did not in any way dispute, so I fail to see how that could possibly be seen as "no consensus". The result of the discussion shown in bold was "Keep". The wording re. moving the article was for information. Sorry if you find it ambiguous, but I don't see it as in the slightest controversial — obviously the article title should have the surname with a capital letter to begin it. Are you saying that you disagree with this move? Tyrenius 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see it as controversial either and yes, I felt that the discussion was much more weighted towards keep, after all I voted for deletion. But consensus did not lean toward move although I agree that yes the last name should be capitalized. Thus, I feel that you should have only put that the consensus was keep and then moved the article yourself to make it comply with the formatting of the name on your own and not claiming that there was consensus behind it. --Strothra 01:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Point noted. Thanks for taking the time to address it. Tyrenius 01:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concordia newsletter

Concordia Newsletter

Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.

Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.

Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Concordia/Do Not Spam.

Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel [6].

- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] postmodernism

hi tyrenius, i like your work on the postmodernism page. I lifted points from the summary paragraph to make bullet points, and kept the writing. I did this largely as a result of complaints onthe discussion page about bloat etc. I msg you because there are redundancies in the page now. hmmm. so id like to know what you think on the article Spencerk 23:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Max Beckmann

Sorry about that - I usually pay attention to previous vandals but U must have missed that one. Thanks for catching my mistake. --Bachrach44 10:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)