User talk:BigHaz/Archive 18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Media watch
Another one if you're interested? or maybe you can recommend another admin, see my last comment on the page. Cheers WikiTownsvillian 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have a closer look at things soon. My brain might be a bit fuzzy this morning, but what's actually at stake here? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the integrity (or alleged lack of) of Media Watch as a scrutinizer of Australian media. It breaches WP:NPOV to legitimise the attacks of a fringe commentator on their blogs. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Righto. I'll see what can be done. Hopefully there'll be a simple solution, but given Media Watch's reputation, something tells me that mightn't be the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the integrity (or alleged lack of) of Media Watch as a scrutinizer of Australian media. It breaches WP:NPOV to legitimise the attacks of a fringe commentator on their blogs. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
John Brogden
Thanks for moving the article John_Brogden_1798_-_1869. But what about his son John_Brogden_1823–1855? Where would you put him? That was the problem that led me to use this unusual name. Budhen 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure, offhand. The folks at the biography project might have better ideas, or some kind of universal system, but perhaps "John Brogden (19th Century)" might work. It's a bit of a challenge, I'll grant you, since the article doesn't give a huge amount of detail and "John Brogden (Methodist)" doesn't really inspire me with confidence. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither "John Brogden (19th Century)" nor "John Brogden (Methodist)" would be right since they are both applicable to both people. I do think it is a pity you didn't think about this before changing the name. I did and that is why I chose the names I did. One way that I considered was "John Brogden (Railway Contractor)" and "John Brogden Jun. (Railway Contractor)" which could be adapted to the way you have selected.Budhen 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now wait just a minute. At no point did I say "these names are what they should be called". I said those were the best I could think of offhand and the Biography WikiProject team may well have better ideas - after all, they work with this sort of thing every day. For all I know, a simple case of putting his years into brackets would suffice, but you'd need to ask someone else. What I thought about before changing the name was that that article was labelled incorrectly. Had the other article been listed at DYK, I would've tried to come up with a more consistent title for it. If there's a better name out there for either article, you're most welcome to move it or them yourself. You might also want to think about the way in which you relate to others in future. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
06:14, 27 April 2007 BigHaz
06:14, 27 April 2007 BigHaz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Dez" (expired prod)
Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me why my page was deleted. I was trying to understand the tutorial but am just more confused now. Am I able to get it put back up? Thanks for your time. Dez
And what is (yourtalk page)? Do I need to create an account to get a reply?
72.129.87.74 21:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- You don't need to create an account, and you've found my Talk page. So that at least is a good start. In terms of the reasoning for deleting the page, it was marked as being "unsourced trivia", which it largely was. The only citations were to sites such as MySpace, which are not reliable sources. Another user had placed a "prod" tag on the article, and that had remained in place for 5 days, at which point the article was deleted. You are welcome to re-write the article if you feel that you can use reliable sources to back up your claims about Dez.
- Just as a quick point, though, you'll notice that the deletion took place in late April, and it's now mid-November. In the normal course of events, one can expect that I won't remember as much about the deletion some 7 months after I did it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Can you write a article about yourself or does someone else have to do it? And for sources, are websites ok?72.129.87.74 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.87.74 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the subheading here, since there's no need to create a new subheading every time anyone says anything in this conversation. In answer to your questions, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with creating an article about yourself, but it's usually a bit of a risky thing to do. Every article on Wikipedia needs to be about something which is notable and verifiable in reliable sources. You may well be notable and verifiable in reliable sources (we have a number of contributors here who are), but often you won't be in the best position to judge that. Not "you" personally, of course, I mean "you" in the sense of "anyone". You will, however, need an account to create an article about anything, yourself included.
- As far as sources are concerned, the applicable guideline is this one. Using something like MySpace or a blog, for example, would not be a good idea, since anyone can say anything on those sites. If, however, you find a newspaper article on a website which backs up a claim that such-and-such is true, that's a good source to use. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Articles entirely in Hindi
Oh please. So you think it's a case of a person who doesn't know a word of English and posted an article entirely in Hindi on an English website? Sorry, I think you're assuming the worst of someone from India. Even persons who aren't fluent in a language try to learn a word or two. I think it's more likely that a kid went to a Hindi website, cut and paste something that to them is written in a "funny alphabet" and dropped it here. Mandsford 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt that very highly, in fact. In my experience, pages end up at WP:PNT (where that one was) precisely because the original author didn't know enough English, or wasn't confident enough to post in it. There've been any number of exchanges with people who've posted articles entirely in other major world languages in which it's come through that they know some English, but aren't remotely confident enough with it to write about their hometown, molecular biology or whatever the topic might be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It's me
Yes, it is that guy who used Jc iindyysgvxc. Could you please tell [[User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson to stop annoying me? And I've been creating an archive that contains the discussions of that user I repeatedly asked to unblock. But he repeatedly deleted it without telling me why he doesn't want it. So could you please ask him why? And don't tell me to do it, because he'll just revert it for some reason! JcIindyysgvxc67 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- In case the user - who has now been indefinitely blocked and rightly so - strolls past this page, I will explain once and for all what's been going on. The previous account referred to above has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism (essentially every kind of vandalism known to man) and other abuses of editing privileges. This later account is clearly, and the user admits here to being, a continuation of the previous account. This is naturally a violation of the indefinite block, since the purpose of a block is to prevent the person from editing, rather than just the account from doing so. The reversions by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson were perfectly legitimate, as the user contacting me shouldn't have been making any edits in the first place. This seems not to have sunk in somewhere along the line, as the user has given the impression that he does not realise that the policies and guidelines of the site apply to him, but hopefully it will do so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you referring to me as the third person? Gunasshu (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because my comments were not entirely directed to you, but rather directed to any and all users who saw this. Let me make something very clear to you, by the way: You Have Been Blocked From Editing Wikipedia. Do not, under any circumstances make any edits to it. Do not create new accounts to edit it. Do not try to edit from your old accounts. Just leave off the editing. You're welcome to read the articles, but your editing days are over. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia apply to all users equally, and you have demonstrated no willingness at all to abide by any of them. This is why people will continue to block you and revert your edits. Do not even think about responding to this comment, as it is positively the last word on the matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand everything. I understand everything. And there's no need to speak to me like that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I don't know anything else (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I could've sworn that I told you not to respond to the comment and also not to create a new account to edit Wikipedia. Once again, you are demonstrating that you simply have no idea what I mean when I say "The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia apply to all users equally, and you have demonstrated no willingness at all to abide by any of them." This means you. Stop creating accounts to continue this conversation. I can't make it clearer than that, although I wish I could, since it doesn't seem to be getting through. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I understand everything. I understand everything. And there's no need to speak to me like that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by I don't know anything else (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because my comments were not entirely directed to you, but rather directed to any and all users who saw this. Let me make something very clear to you, by the way: You Have Been Blocked From Editing Wikipedia. Do not, under any circumstances make any edits to it. Do not create new accounts to edit it. Do not try to edit from your old accounts. Just leave off the editing. You're welcome to read the articles, but your editing days are over. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia apply to all users equally, and you have demonstrated no willingness at all to abide by any of them. This is why people will continue to block you and revert your edits. Do not even think about responding to this comment, as it is positively the last word on the matter. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you referring to me as the third person? Gunasshu (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Evelyn
Oops! Sorry about that - thanks for picking it up. Rebecca (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone is after you!
Hello BigHaz. I saw vandalism on your talk page and I think someone is after you. I am still new on Wiki and I think personal ego plays a huge part here. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's a case of ego, but I'd bet I know precisely who it is who was responsible. If it's who I think it is, he really should know better, after our long interactions of late. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the IP addresses are too spread out to do a rangeblock. Slocking your page is probably more effective. Blocking a single ip isn't going to be useful because it seems his IP changes every day. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Damn. I think I'll keep my page as open as possible for the moment, since I feel that new/unregistered users have the right to ask me questions and so on, although if he keeps it up then I might change my views. So he's definitely changing IPs regularly, or is there one big change from when his school broke for the year? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the IP addresses are too spread out to do a rangeblock. Slocking your page is probably more effective. Blocking a single ip isn't going to be useful because it seems his IP changes every day. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Inspector Rex
Judging from what I saw last night, I guess we'll have to point out that Alexander Pschill also played a crook in the old days. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Touche
Ah, no actually. Fadden and Forde might be described as "interim", "short-term" or "caretaker" Prime Ministers, but they were certainly not "acting" in a formal sense. They were both just as much fully Prime Minister as Bob Menzies was, albeit in office for a considerably shorter period. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thus demonstrating why political science was glad to get rid of me in my early days of uni... BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Userpage
You've probably given yourself away there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given away how? If it's a top-secret hush-hush thing, let me know by Email. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Saidullah Khalik
I saw that you wrote:
-
Unless there's something I've overlooked, there's nothing about this particular Guantanamo inmate that warrants an article about him when there is already an article about the ethnic group of which he is a member.]
Can I verify that you did not overlook that (1) Guantanamo captives are supposed have annual hearings review whether they should continue to be held in US custody; (2) the DoD did not schedule those hearings. (3) The DoD has not announced he has been cleared for release. -- This is exactly the situation the reviews were set up to prevent -- men facing life-long detention -- without charge -- and without any kind of review of their status.
I took a look at your recent opinions expressed in the deletion fora, and saw you expressed keep for
| Death of Dean Shillingsworth |
I see you are an Australian. The wikipedia is an international project. I am sure you have noticed that there is an inherent bias to covering American topics. And some of our American contributors would happily delete articles that didn't stir any news coverage in the USA as "non-notable", just because they didn't trigger that news coverage. I think this a regrettable phenomenon. I am pleased when I see reason win over US parochialism. There are 30 million Uyghurs. I think we can count on the unprecedent extrajudicial detention of other Uyghurs being of interest to them. |
| South African cricket team in India in 2007-08 |
Nominator dismissed Saidullah Khalik's eligibility for a judicial review of his status, as specified in the Military Commissions Act, based on the DoD's failure to comply with its own rules -- he called it "unsourced". If I am not mistaken your keep for the cricket tour is just as speculative. The article doesn't say anything like: "It would be totally unprecedented if Saidullah Khalik's status was reviewed by the US civil court system." I did suggest this in reply to one of the nominator's comments. Could you please explain why your implied speculation that this tour could be important differs from my speculation as to importance of Saidullah Khalik's civil court review? I looked at the cricket info page about predicted tours. I must be predicting dozens of predicted tours. Just so I know, would you voice a keep about articles about all those predicted tours? |
I have been a big contributor to articles on the GWOT for the last two years. It has been my unfortunate experience to have triggered the untender attentions of partisan POV pushers. A substantial fraction of these nominators turned out to be sockpuppets. Nominating GWOT articles for deletion, sometimes for totally bogus reasons, has been one of the favoured ploys of these POV-pushers
The frequent lack of civility, and lack of real meaningful discussion, in the deletion fora, is my biggest concern for the wikipedia's future.
There are a number of paths for the wikipedia's future growth. They are largely incompatible. I am not a regular patroller of the deletion fora. But I have participated in dozens of discussions. And the general pattern I have seen is that proponents of different visions of the wikipedia are trying to shape its future by brute force, by expressing opinions as to whether an article should be deleted not by giving honest consideration to the article actual merits, but rather making a snap judgment as to how it fits in their vision of the future wikipedia.
-
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh is an example. The nominator nominated three GWOT related articles for deletion on the same day. Two of them were articles about Guantanamo captives. The third, Zahid Al-Sheikh, was about the older brother of one of al Qaeda's most senior operatives, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Zahid Al-Sheikh is not merely the brother of someone noteworthy. There are remarkable aspects to his own story.
But the nominator spent so little time reading the article that he told participants in the discussion that Zahid Al-Sheikh too was a Guantanamo captive. And the first four participants who voiced delete followed the nominators lead. They voiced basically the same justification for deleting Zahid Al-Sheikh, Guantanamo captive, as they had for the other two Guantanamo captives. They too didn't spend enough time reading the article to realize he was not a Guantanamo captive.
The contributor who were caught napping, whose opinions were revealed to have been based solely on the nominator's bogus description, not based on reading the article for themselves, did not go back and review their comments in the other two discussions.
I have my own ideas about the wikipedia's future. I have looked for a venue where proponents were having a civil reasoned discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the competing visions. I haven't found one.
Can I ask what guides your choices in the deletion fora? Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely you can. As I see it, the fact that these various things did not happen for Saidullah Khalik is only of marginal relevance. The article does not make it clear - at least on my reading - that this is why he is a notable individual. The majority of the article sets him up as one of a group of Uyghurs who are accused of doing X, Y and Z. The article then explains that he was accused of doing X, Y and Z. I take your point that the extrajudicial detention of Uyghurs is relevant to Uyghurs - and to other people as well, hence the article which exists. I don't necessarily agree with the argument that the extrajudicial detention of this particular Uyghur is sufficiently notable for an article.
- Inasmuch as my other opinions of keep are remotely relevant (neither example is a useful precedent here), my reasoning was as follows. The Shillingsworth case was, as other users pointed out, much of the impetus behind the NSW government setting up an inquiry into the way its Department of Community Services handles cases. Were it not for that fact, I would not have suggested it be kept, tragic though the case may have been. There is no comparison with Saidullah Khalik that I can see, as his case has not resulted in any official inquiries as yet, at least as I read the article.
- The cricket tour is also entirely different. For the record, yes, I would express the same opinion on any tour listed in the "future tours program", although ideally I'd want a bit more information than "X will tour Y in [month], [year]" in the article first. As I said in that discussion, Test tours are the absolute top of the tree when it comes to cricket. The inclusion of a tour in the program means that it will go ahead (it's happening in March next year, after all) unless some terrible mishap occurs (Australia's forthcoming tour to Pakistan is under threat due to the security situation there at present, for example). There's nothing remotely speculative about it - we're dealing in facts. As for my "implied speculation that the tour will be important", I really can't begin to explain why this is anything but speculation in a space like this. Compare any and all articles on Test tours here, and you'll see that they all attract masses of coverage as well as having a significant impact on the teams involved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Joyeux Noël
I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
