User talk:Chidom/Archive 06-04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] David Attenborough pic

I have now located a new picture that has copyright granted for non-commercial and educational use in return for an appropriate credit, and I have included this in the image description. I have now also removed the "Image for deletion" tag. Hope this is okay. Chris 42 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Dalton (porn star)

Hi. Sorry, no. As the article's substantially identical to the one that was deleted via AFD, the speedy deletion was correct. Go to WP:DRV if you're unhappy. Proto::type 08:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lukas Ridgeston

Please no real names of porn stars. Lukas was stalked once and this here shouldn't be the place where to find such information. As a precendence: Brandy Alexandre had her real name permanently removed from her wikipedia page. So why doesn't this apply to others? BTW IMDB was also approached to delete the real name. Thanks. Jamesbeat 18:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think this [1] was the best and most creative improvement

Much better than my attempt. Good Job! SolelyFacts 19:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.—Chidom talk  23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Dalton

Hi,

You're a bit unfamiliar with how transfers to article-space work, obviously. You applied for the undeletion of Mark Dalton (porn star) at DRV, and offered a revised draft as evidence. You won the DRV. Your new draft of Mark Dalton was approved for article-space. The GFDL requires intact article creation histories for all articles, so I moved the draft in your user-space to article-space, complete with its history. The cross-namespace redirects that arose from the move were then deleted, per CSD R2. This is standard procedure for any article moved from user-space to article-space -- it's about as far from "dangerous" as one can get. :) User-space drafts are not intended to dwell forever in user-space; promotion to article-space is a good thing, and is exactly what you asked for by filing a DRV request, although it now seems you were a bit unclear on the particulars. In the event that "Mark Dalton (porn star)" is again deleted, it can be moved back to your userspace for you. I would have made all this explicitly clear for you in talk message, but I assumed you understood the relevant practices.

At Wikipedia, movement of articles by "cut-and-paste" is very bad form, and is not compliant with our GFDL copyright license. If you have previously moved any articles in this way, please alert me, and I will fix the article histories using admin tools.

I'm not really sure why every word of the header is capitialized -- I suppose for emphasis. I did deliberately avoid alternative symbols, spelling "heart," to prevent any strange displays on the many different viewers Wikipedia's techno-savvy users employ. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suppose, given the playful connotation of the word "sandbox", I can see how your misunderstanding arose. Nevertheless, the GFDL requires the full preservation of the edit history; "cut-and-paste" moves are simply unacceptable under normal circumstances. I'm sorry you didn't understand what was happening, but the move was typical, and the only simple way to comply with GFDL requirements. About three such drafts are approved (and moved to article-space) at DRV in an average week.
Somewhat separately, I see that you have expressed some anger at the new AfD now underway. I assure you that I undertook this AfD only as a precaution, to ensure that all the worries over sourcing had been adequately addressed. The AfD is a means of soliciting impartial community opinion on that question. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that any significant content you wish to insert into an article should not be cut-and-pasted. Please alert me when you are finished, and I undertake the needed history merge. As I said, if you know of any other places were "cut-and-pasting" was used for significant content, please alert me, so that I might fix the article histories. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves, as well WP:GFDL, Section 5, for why "cut-and-paste" moves are strongly disfavored. It is unfortunate that you have been ignorant of this "finer point" of Wikipedia practice until now, but not uncommon. It is quite possible that your earlier "cut-and-paste" moves were caught by an admin on "recent changes" and rectified silently. You are welcome to seek whatever third-opinion you wish from any admin, but the issue is a very obvious one, as should be easy to see from the first link I've provided.
On re-examining the DRV, I recall that yours was a borderline case; because of the striking of several votes, I would probably have been within discretion to have endorsed deletion outright. I undertook the move and listing at AfD as a compromise solution, in effort to give the article a fair hearing, and make sense of an ambiguous DRV discussion. It is actually standard procedure to list any article restored by a narrow DRV consensus at AfD; I chose to list it "editorially", again, because the ambiguous nature of the DRV did not clearly place it in easily pre-defined categories.
I appreciate your desire for thoroughness here, but you should probably consider your own relative inexperience in Wikipedia's various processes and procedures. I assure you that these practices exist for good reason, and are carried out every day. What reason would you have to believe that I confused or mistaken? Absent any such reason, it is often best to accept the advice of more experienced folks readily and in good humor. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help me

Please review the discussion regarding User:Chidom/Permanent Record and Mark Dalton (porn star) above and at User talk:Xoloz#User:Chidom/Permanent Record. In a nutshell, I believe that Xoloz is mistakenly applying a process to user pages that applies to articles.

In addition to the references I have already cited in the discussion, I also found this:

Wikipedia:What is an article?

"An "article" does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as:
* * * *
  • "the user namespace for pages that are used by individual Wikipedia writers (example, User:Jimbo Wales).
* * * *
"The automatic definition used by the software at Special:Statistics is: any page that is in the article namespace, is not a redirect page and contains at least one wiki link. The statistics software currently has no method of detecting disambiguation pages, however; nor does it disregard stubs (but in any case many articles tagged as stubs are quite substantial) or stublists (lists templates with little or no content)." (emphasis edited from that on page)

Lastly, Xoloz's methodology does not preserve the history of the original Mark Dalton (porn star) page prior to its deletion.

Thanks.—Chidom talk  17:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK arguing about the semantics of if it's a user page or article are pretty much irrelevant, those are wikipedia concepts, not GFDL concepts. The important aspect is the GFDL one, I haven't looked into this deeply but. (a) If your copy of the article was based on the original from many contributors, but your version only had additional contributions from you, then a cut and paste copy after restoring the original would be fine, it'd just make it look like you did all the edits in one go, but the attribution would all be to the correct person. (b) If your copy was based on the original and contained additional contributions by others, then a history merge would have been in order (c) If your copy was toally unique to the original and only by you, then a cut and paste would have been fine (d) If your copy was totally unique to the original but was multiple contributions, then a simple move would have been required.
The best way to do this really would have been to get the original restored to your user space to work on (complete with its edit history) and moved over once complete. --pgk 18:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened on my part was your example (c); what happened was (d). I drafted the new article on my user page with the intention of cutting and pasting it to the undeleted article. The deleted article wasn't undeleted, my user page was renamed (moved), which created a redirect, which was then deleted. Now the history of my user page is attached to the article page and my user page is gone. I need the user page back; I blanked it to work on this draft with the assumption that I could revert to the previous version that had all my other works in progress once my Mark Dalton draft was cut and pasted to the undeleted page. I'd like the existing Mark Dalton article moved to User:Chidom/Permanent Record, the original article undeleted, and my draft cut and pasted there; that would preserved the original article's history as well as my page's.

As for the best way, the admin who deleted the page copied and pasted the previous article's contents onto a page that I created: User:Chidom/Dalton.—Chidom talk  18:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The move is fine in the (c) scenario (not needed as the single cut and paste would have been as if you'd done it all off line and contributed in one go, but fine none the less), but in this case it seems is inconvenient for you. I can delete the earlier unneeded revisions from the article easily enough, moving them all back here is tougher, do you need that or can you just copy the one(s) you want? --pgk 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking into it, I see what you mean now, the initial copies version would have other's stuff in which wouldn't be properly attributed. I need to think about this, we should be able to recover the original versions as history which would put everything right... --pgk 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Would this not work?:

  • Move the existing Dalton page to User:Chidom/Permanent Record
  • Delete the existing Dalton page that has now become a redirect
  • Undelete the November 5 version of the Dalton article
  • Copy and paste the text that is now on Permanent Record to the undeleted Dalton article
  • Copy and paste the text on the talk page of Permanent Record to the undeleted talk page and blank the talk page for Permanent Record
  • Merge only the histories that are applicable to the undeleted Dalton article for both the article and the talk page

I would really like to be able to go back and access multiple versions of my user page; knowing at this point what I might need in the future just isn't possible and I don't want to go back to the Mark Dalton article to find an earlier version. (My opinion is that no one should be able to click on an earlier revision of the Dalton article and see versions of my user page; I think that is what you're referring to with regard to "delete the earlier unneeded revisions...". Thanks.—Chidom talk  18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I've not done it quite like that, your page is back as of the 5th Nov and the edits since merged in with the original edits of the article page. I'll take a look at talk also. --pgk 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Now that the article is restored, I'm wondering what happened between this version and this version. Are there other edits that are missing, or did User:Deadworm222 really reduce the previous article to a stub that ultimately was the basis for the deletion? (With no edit summary, either.) Deadworm has chimed in with a "Keep" recommendation on the current AfD; I'll pose this question to him as well. Sorry to keep bugging you about this; you've been immensely helpful.—Chidom talk  04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

In effect yes, the article didn't exist, the stub was him creating from scratch. It's one of the problems with the history in these cases as it has to be considered relative to the various moves and deletions. --pgk 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

After really researching this and looking at the deletion log for the article, apparently this version was speedy deleted by User:Proto under Speedy G4 (Recreation...of a substantially identical copy...) because this version failed an AfD. To my mind, the two are nowhere near "substantially identical"; I suppose it's a bit late to be questioning this, but I wish the speedy had been caught at the time. I started editing here on July 16, and was clueless in so many ways <grin>; I've improved somewhat since then, but obviously still have a lot to learn.

In any event, thanks again for all your help. Have good days.—Chidom talk  19:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes G4 is a bit confusing at times, it's often used to delete content which has been deleted through AFD where the new article does nothing to address the issue raised in the AFD, a stub generally wouldn't do that. --pgk 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What was deleted was hardly a stub. Whether it addressed the AfD or not it didn't qualify for G4, it was a far cry from "identical". An editor could be totally unaware that there had been an AfD, what the content of the earlier version was, and the issues with that content; that would make it impossible to address the issue(s). It's irrelevant now, however.—Chidom talk  20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't looked beyone the stub you linked earlier. It is one of the downsides of G4, but most admins should be happy to talk about the deletion and give further detail of why it was deleted and if need be restore it. It can be a tricky balance between making sure we don't get cluttered with material which doesn't meet our requirements and recognising that like most decisions on wikipedia, AFD is not a binding decision (for keep or delete). Much of wikipedia's policy is based around general principle rather than absolutes and requires discretion (and common sense) on behalf of those working with it. The encyclopedia is undoubtedly moving further towards a quality not quantity basis, but the subjects of the articles may also be moving, yesterdays Mr. Nobody can be todays superstar. --pgk 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spam-whitelist

Hello, Chidom! I did mean to start taking care of that page and helping out there, but it seems like I must not have watchlisted that page earlier when I meant to, and thus forgot about the requests on that page. I will start taking care of all of those requests; but because I would like to tackle a large chunk of them at once, I'll probably do them in a few hours or early tomorrow, but I should be able to get to them within 24 hours at the latest. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and I didn't feel that you were complaining at all. I'll get to them extremely soon, and always feel free to prod me for help or assistance. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falcon Studios

Based on your history, I thought you might be interested in participating in the Falcon Studios deletion discussion. The article got speedy deleted for sounding like an advertisement, and because somebody thought it might be WP:COPYVIO. Before I found the backup copy I created a stub article, but I guess that article is up for deletion right now, because some people think that Falcon Studios is non-notable, and doesn't pass WP:CORP. -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nice work on saving the article. Do you want to make a bet on long it will be before it is nominated again? Zeromacnoo 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks—I'll pass on the bet, though. Don't discount your own contributions to its salvation, my friend. I glommed onto the additional references you found as quickly as I could! I have to admit that finding independent sources on Falcon was one of the more difficult things I've done since I got here. They get mentioned everywhere, but are already well-established and respected, so little or no expanded information is available (as you could tell). I actually typeset some of their video boxes and product brochures in the late 1980s in San Francisco. It was interesting to have other clients come in while I had pictures of naked and half-naked men spread out all over my desk and was typing "he shoved his hard..." and so forth. Due partly to that and my knowing some of the models personally (a few of which I counted as real friends), I have personal knowledge that would be great in the article but I can't find any sources for it. ::::heavy sigh::::
By the way, check out something currently called Wikicite. It's an excellent tool for creating references; takes all the hassle out of the process! Thanks, and take care.—Chidom talk  19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thank you both. I know I left the article pretty barren; I wasn't entirely sure where to look for sources. I'm just glad it passed; this article needed to be here. I think since everything is cited now, even if it does get speedied, it would easily beat a DRV -Todd(Talk-Contribs) 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
As a final bit of housekeeping, the article really belongs at Falcon Entertainment; Falcon Studios should be a redirect page. Right now, it's the exact opposite (how were you to know?). I'll be happy to handle the move request if there's no objection?—Chidom talk  03:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luttif Afif

I think you made a mistake in citing the article for lack of sources. Sources are cited liberally throughout the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BassPlyr23, 09:02, November 18, 2006 (talk • contribs).

I've restored the tag and will discuss this on the article's talk page.—Chidom talk  15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicite reply

Hi Chidom, thanks for the feedback. When I get some spare time I will be trying to get Wikicite to be able to import a reference as well as creating one. That will allow form based editing of existing references. Thats a fair way off at the moment though. In the meantime, if you click in the fields you want to include, but don't have information for, then press the space bar, Wikicite will include the template code for that field when it creates the reference. I just tested this idea with the web citation[1], the journal citation[2] and the book citation[3] to make sure it worked. Wikicite checks each field to see if it has text as it creates the reference. If the field has any text at all, including a single space character, it includes that field in the reference. I hope this solves your problem. --Dave 01:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Testing the web citation. Retrieved on 2006-11-19.
  2. ^ "A test Journal". 
  3. ^ A test book. 
Absolutely awesome and simple. (doh!) I actually tried that, but evidently didn't read the code carefully enough to see that the fields were there but blanked. Thanks so much!—Chidom talk  20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks on disambig pages

I recently found your edit to Trash, a disambig page, which added wikilinks to names that were non-ambiguous. This defeats the purpose of disambiguation and is contrary to the policy set forth in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), which reads, "Each bulleted entry should... have exactly one navigable (blue) link". Robert K S 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. There were other multiple links on some lines, I was unaware of the guideline. I did restore the formatting that helped identify the acronym. Thanks.—Chidom talk  21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The acryonym doesn't need pointing up with bold, for at least three reasons. Least, the all caps TRASH implies an acronym. Second, the bold cannot point up the acronym any more than the caps already do. But importantly, a disambig page is not an article: its purpose is solely to disambiguate. It should not explain the acronym, it should merely lead the user searching an ambiguous term to the article being sought. If the acronym needs pointing up, maybe the best way to do it is in the disambiguating phrase: "TRASH is an acronym for:" ...? Robert K S 00:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you obviously have a problem with it, and changed it, which is fine. I disagree with your reasoning, but it's not worth any further discussion.—Chidom talk  10:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Rebecca#Concerns

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may want to comment at User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns.-- Jreferee 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite; however, I noticed that she has a long history of engendering concerns and has continued to do so regardless of any consequential actions. I don't feel it's worth my time to add to the discussion.—Chidom talk  02:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion Needed

You have responded to a move debate. There is a related debate where your opinion would be useful at header tags. TonyTheTiger 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning threats

Don't you dare threaten me you pompous, arrogant blowhard. If you have a problem with citations, take it to the talk page of the article and ask for input. You are not God, and I won't be treated with contempt. Wjhonson 18:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not a threat. The information is on the talk page, as was part of my post to your talk page. Also, please read the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy; your comments here are inappropriate.—Chidom talk  18:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You posted a *warning* to my talk page, merely based on me adding a {{fact}} tag to the article that you had reverted based on an assumption that something was unfactual. I assumed it was factual. That does not give you a high ground here by any means. A real name is certainly not, by any stretch of the imagination, libel, your warning is completely groundless. Your attack on my page is inappropriate per Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. Don't try your smear tactics on me buddy. Wjhonson 18:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The policy quoted on the article's talk page specifically states that you cannot assume anything when dealing with the biography of a living person. This is not a smear tactic, it's following policy.—Chidom talk  19:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson's comment here opening this exchange was not acceptable, whatever the provocation, no matter who is right. If this sort of personal attacks continue, he can and will be blocked from editing. I wrote the same on his talk page. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet you find this editor accusing me of libel acceptable? And posting a warning to my page about libel, when all I did was restore an edit with a fact tag that he had reverted without comment ? You find that a normal way for one editor to treat another? I find it completely outrageous. However I will accept an apology after this editor reads up on what "libel" actually means. Wjhonson 02:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm copying here the filth this person left on my talk page. Filth is not even a strong enough word to describe it.

"See Talk:Johnny Hazzard.—Chidom talk  18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy."

These are the facts, absent any "spin" or misinterpretation:
  1. I have not accused you of libel or anything else
  2. the "filth" I left is a standard Wikipedia template
  3. when I added the template, I also added a link to the article talk page for more information
  4. the template that I posted makes one statement specifically about you: that you made an edit
  5. the template goes on to warn that the edit may be considered defamatory; it does not assert that it is defamatory or that you have defamed/libeled anyone
  6. the template includes a request that the information not be restored to the article
  7. the template provides information about the consequences of restoring the information contrary to the request
  8. the template provides a link to the policy on how and why editors are blocked
  9. I made no edits or reversions to the article without providing specific information in the edit summary as to why I was doing so
  10. I quoted Wikipedia policy at length on the article's talk page that is specific to the situation, further documenting the reasons for the reversions
  11. The policy specifically states that using the [citation needed] tag is unacceptable in situations of this kind; that information is quoted on the article talk page using boldface type
Apart from adhering to policy, restoring the information could lead to quite serious consequences to Wikipedia; one of the many ways this could occur would be that if the name that you keep reinserting is the actual name of someone who quite strenuously objects to being identified as a gay porn star; hence the edit may be considered to be defamatory.
There are good reasons for the policy and for setting forth the consequences of not following it. Quoting policy appropriately has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, as you have accused me of doing.—Chidom talk  06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/User_talk%7EChidom_Archive_06-04_5660.html"