User talk:Fritzpoll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3







The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 4, Issue 24 — 2008-06-09

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Contents

[edit] The Apprentice articles

In response to your enquiry:

Hey dude, I'm doing ok! and you? you seem to have been busy. Did't realise you had such a debate, but good luck, and congrats that your bot got approved :-) Ok, I'm defo up for the push, lets start with writing a list of tasks on the project page, then we can all work from that? not sure where you will see this post, so I have copied this from my talk page and put it on yours. Many thanks, δ²(Talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restrictions on dabbing

Hi Fritz. If you are referring to my praise of Carlos's work last night it wasn't so much his dabbing of the lists you created but his general activity on wikipedia in this field in which he deserved to be encouraged. As for the community consensus, you do realise that most places will have to be evaded from being created by the bot now as you will not find "adequate" details on many of the African countries or poorer countries in Asia and Latin America for some time however optimistic we may be. Working with wikiprojects or not, for many of the countries in Africa you won't find enough data to create to high class articles on so even towns will have to be ignored by the bot leaving the countries which are in serious need of development left out because of this conservative approach. This was the whole point of the bot to start with. This means that the limited quantity that the bot will create due to these heavy restrictions could easily be done manually and somewhat defeats the object of why it was initially requested. The places that 100 people initally wanted to see with articles but many people didn't will be added anyway, its a pity more data isn't availbale for many of these countries. I;ve done some web searching and for the countries I most wanted to use that bot for, limited data is available meaning we will have to still ignore towns in many countries which isn't what I wanted. I fully agree that planning and working on each country and obtaining data through consensus is the best course of action, but the reality is that many of the most lacking countries are still going to be left out. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry for the moment - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised what we can turn up and how much the bot can help. Let's experiment with American Samoa, see how it turns out, and then work from there. If you want to include all these places, the best thing we can do is to have a big push to finalise WP:NPT, which would specify easily what places are and are not notable. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmm OK. What I would suggest though that if many villages in the directory ar eleft out of inclusion I would propose we create lists of the smaller places in tables by district/province with as much data as is available if there isn't enough to create seperate articles as Giro once suggested. We could then create the redriects to the lists of all the other places, so eventually the wikipedia index recognizes all settlements whether they are speerate articles or in lists, Then as info becomes avilabale the speerate articles can be created. Sound good?

What I want is wikipedia to recognize all the places that appear on sites like national satellite agency and maplandia but use what is avilable to display the information in different forms e.g if there is enough data -create seperate articles, if not create a list of places with info on location with a globe inside the tables etc in lists. This way even if there isn;t a load of info on many countries as I am concerned about, wikipedia would still offer coordinates of these places and acknowledgement. I am kinda hoping that as we work through countries info on other places will gradually become availabale so by the time we come to work on a country info has become available.. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - lists as a backup position should be one of our default guideliens at the new project/taskforce - let's move this discussion there Fritzpoll (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I wa going to follow up with the idea that if info becomes available in the future for notability purposes, the bot may become useful again, but more likely, we will at least have a source of redlinks with exisiting data for people to use to expand into bigger articles. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the new pages now!! I'm pretty quick for a human, many people have mistaken me for a bot before, but the reality is a bot could do things ten times quicker. The moment is goes into action is the moment I;ve been waiting for. Any progress on the project proposal? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What I'd propose is that when the new project is established we have a department or sub pages dedicated to research. To compiling sources or listing potential sources for each country. What do you think?. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If we decide, which I strongly think we should to create tables of all places anyway by district of each country, I think that the directory should still be generated. We may need to adapt it however if we are to trnasfer them into tables and find other info. Where we can I think we should create as many seperate articles as possible if valid enough but for those which at present it is difficult to obtain data, lists of tables would seem to most comprehensive system. After all people are here to learn, and if they have to visit 100 different pages to get the same data that could be listed in a neat table then our job isn't being done correctly. Some day in the future I can see websites dedicated to districts like there are in places like france and the UK etc all over the world and the days when we found it hard to find a population figure will be laughable, as by this time paragraphs of info on the history/culture of these places will gradually become avilable. It may be a while for some countries to gain access to the web but I think we can be sure that the givernment or elite of even poverty stricken countries will be wealthy eough to publish data online even in countries like Liberia, Guinea etc ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Here is a world directory of national statistic websites I found. COuld prove useful ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - I think we should start documenting these resources on the centralised page to make it easier to find them Fritzpoll (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Micronesia too. I'll complete drawing up a full directory of national sites in the mainspace. There is already a list but at present it only covers the bigger countries not those in the developing world. I'll transfer all the details from the world bank directory onto wikipedia so we at least have some potential sources for every country. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be best of course to have a department or subpage of the new project dedicated to research and collecting links for each country which could be used ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll draw up a full list at List of national and international statistical services. Then this can be copied to the new project. Sound good? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soapboxing by User:Caesarjbsquitti‎

Hi Fritzpoll, Jehochman asked me to pass this on to you. User:Caesarjbsquitti‎ has been making a long long number of trolling and soapboxing remarks to various articles. He was topic banned from 9/11 articles recently but has continued to soapbox in other areas. He was blocked in November 2007 for the same behaviour. Here is my message to Jehochman and my detailed message to User:Haemo. Both Jehochman and Haemo recused themselves from dealing with this due to Caesarjbsquitti‎'s remarks about 9/11. Thanks for reading this--Cailil talk 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just posting this to acknowledge your comments. I'll have a look into this, and if I am unable to handle it, I will find you an appropriate admin who will Fritzpoll (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like somebody to look at this edit to the project page of WP:GS. Notice also that the edit is mark as "minor" like a number of other additions that Caesarjbsquitti‎ has recently made He seems to have made a mistake and says he thought he was posting to the talk page--Cailil talk 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding the recent proposal

Good afternoon. I would like to comment on the proposal as stated at User:Fritzpoll/Refinement. Where should I do so? Thanks, your work on this proposal is appreciated. Feel free to respond on my talk page to ensure I receive the answer. Beam 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual proposal has actually achieved consensus as per WP:GEOBOT - perhaps I can answer any questions, or address any comments you may have. Alternatively, the working group is currently working out of User:John_Carter/GEOBOT_group and you can see how things are building up into activity Fritzpoll (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot group comments

You said that the first thing the group should probably do is work on the articles the bot did in its trial run. Not a bad idea, but a lot of the parties invovled seem to have very limited geographic interests, and it might be best to just let them work on generating lists for the countries they're interested in first. Do you by any chance have a list of the articles the bot has worked on? John Carter (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to hand, but if you look at its contributions, that should give us the list. Apologies for not being more active about this - work has suddenly picked up in intensity, and I haven't the time and energy afterwards to do much in the way of typing. I'll be back up to speed soon though! Fritzpoll (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all, believe me. I think I found some of them. Unfortunately, most of the Afghan content seems to be, well, underdeveloped. But we are getting a little more done there. I've nominated two mosques for DYKs today, and hope that might breathe a little more activity into the group as well. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the proposal had been made at WP:COuncils?? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not by me - I've been too busy in real life... Fritzpoll (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought John had filed it? IN that case I'm going to list it at WP:COuncils now. I'd rather we set it up as the village pump acted as a council discussion before but I guess we have to do it by the book. I want to see that bot running asap ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage Design

I might be interested in helping out on your userpage. Let me know what you're after and what you've already seent hat you like, and I'll see what I can do. Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually quite like the simple way yours is laid out, but I'd want a couple of my userboxes within it, and obviously a lot of text that I'd define myself. Not very imaginative, so I'll tell you what - go ahead and change my userpage. Do whatever you think would make it look nice, and I'll fiddle with the tiny details afterwards. I, in the meantime, have to go do a certain editor's RfA Review questions... :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Just a couple of style questions. What are your favourite colours, what icon set do you prefer and is your username unified across all wikimedia services? Also, do you mind me creating some subpages to hold content? Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Not globally unified yet, blue or dark green, create all the pages you like (within my userspace - this isn't carte blanche for creating articles on magical leprechauns :) ) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okies, I'll set to it later tonight. Shame about the leprechauns though [1] :) Gazimoff WriteRead 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
haha! Thanks very much - if you need anything around here, give me a shout Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've sone some basic work on it. Hope it's alright. Gazimoff WriteRead 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] police deletion

Mind if I bold your "delete" vote? Also, as far as a police department being notably non-notable is concerned: thanks for your appreciation of my humor; what I meant is that almost any police department gets coverage in reliable third-party sources. It would be notable for the police not to be in the news.

So I am inclusionist towards emergency service agencies. By the way, as an aside, one of the reasons that I'm inclusionist as to the police is that the police in my community have their own article (they are notable because of the sniper investigation), and I don't see why the police elsewhere shouldn't; the other reason is that I think that inherent notability belongs to public institutions, which both museums and police are. Please reply on the AfD discussion and then put {{talkback}} on my talk page. Thanks. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the duff formatting of the !vote. I think the problem here is that things are not inherently notable. The real question is whether or not the police department here has recieved reliable, independent non-trivial coverage in third-party sources. The non-triviality means that it isn't enough to read an article simply mentioning the police department, it has to be at least partly about the police department. That's where this article, in my opinion, fails WP:N. I'm happy to keep discussing this, but posting my reply to the AfD will look a little disjointed Fritzpoll (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that our positions are well stated. There are some topics (such as, for example, individual instances of this) that I think to be inherently notable, but the boundaries of inherent notability are subject to discussion. Anyhow, I predict the Oak Park Police will either be a redirect or a no-consensus keep, either of which will be fine with me. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I figured the talk page of the project page would probably be the best place for discussion. I am trying to only really expand the articles that are all already completed, but the book I'm using groups several modern areas together into individual volumes, and I can't be surer it'll be around indefinitely, so I'm winding up creating a few new articles which are showing up in the Badakhshan volume anyway, while the book is available. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I know - I was mostly wondering where the project is going to end up being...can't be in your userspace forever Fritzpoll (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Unfortunately, no responses from the Geography project yet, other than my own. We could turn it into the Missing encyclopedic articles/Geography task force though. Alternately, considering it is a possibly temporary event, maybe just completely integrating into Geography as a regular part of the project. If we don't get some response by early next week, I may well take the iniative(insert less flattering terms here) myself regarding it. But, considering the Signpost hasn't run my story yet, and actually hasn't come out this week, I think we can reasonably wait until that story's been out before we act. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well how long are you willing to wait. Is all this waiting necessary given that it has been approved? All we need to decide is what department it is to be under. I;ve never had much response from WP:Geography or WP:Cities on other issues either. I think it would be best as a task force of missing articles given that a lot of set up has alreadt been done there ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I say screwit, just start working as it is now. It's not like a few redirects or pagemoves can't fix things up real quick. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New project to coordinate GEOBOT proposed at WP:Councils

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Missing Encyclopedia articles/Geography task force has been formally requested. Please feel free to add further comment. The sooner we get an official framework to coordinate established the sooner the bot can start work! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corliss P. Stone

So we Americans are supposed to put up with your British desire to create a stub for every little hamlet and village in England but if we use public domain material for a stub on a Mayor of Seattle a City bigger than Liverpool it gets deleted. What @#^& explitive deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBond (talk • contribs) 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the hamlets and villages are notable, yes - I have dual nationality, so being British has nothing to do with anything. Write the article, in your *own* words - not just a copy and paste from a source that you claim is public domain, and make sure you assert the importance of the subject. No need to get huffy about it, you've been told how to fix this by multiple editors, and you just continue to upload the same page over and over again Fritzpoll (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple editors keep making the same mistake because they do not know American copyright law. If a text was published before January 1 1923 it s public domain. There are no hamlets in Britain more notable than Seattle. I am appaled that there are editors in Britain who ave nothing better to do han vanadlize American articles based on their prejudice. RichardBond (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of vandalism when I am simply applying policy, and please stop using my nationality against me. I am well aware of American copyright law in this matter, but the text you are dumping into the article is not asserting notability - I don't care about the copyright issue, as, as far as I'm concerned, it is moot. I just care that the article asserts the notability of its subject. Hence why is is deleted per WP:CSD#A7 and not under copyright violations Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Only a person from another country with a massive case of chauvinism would consider the Mayor of an American city to not be notable. Leave the article alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardBond (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) So now I'm a chauvinist as well - joyous. Not quite sure how that links in. I'm not the only administrator who deleted your article, so why only harrass me about it, eh? Off you go now. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attack page

"The controversy continued in the spring of 2008 when Takenouchi, who suffers from severe bipolar disorder, abandoned her company Yaoi house while in a delusional mania state, leaving customers, investors, and authors to pick up the pieces. Takenouchi has since returned to the company and continues to generate censure for retaining the title of President, despite her now well-known mental condition. [1]"

"Delusional mania state, leaving customers, investors and authors to pick up the pieces," isn't an attack? How so? Please elaborate. --Blechnic (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You removed the material, so the page is not an attack page. An attack page is a page which has the sole purpose of disparaging its subject. This is not the case here Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, right, someone created the pages with a group of spam accounts and the attackers came in about 24 hours and started using it as such. I'm sure it wasn't that purpose. But, now that it's solidly in the history of the article, everyone can read about her alleged mental illnesses. I'm surprised that no matter how much more clever the spammers and attackers on Wikipedia get, it doesn't seem to be a coevolutionary situation. --Blechnic (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is undergoing AfD - if you are worried about BLP issues, I suggest going to WP:OVERSIGHT, which may be able to help get rid of the edits forever. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't care, obviously more important on Wikipedia to provide highly visible space for attacking other people. --Blechnic (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Fritz is acting appropriately within the CSD criteria. Speedily deleting the page for attacks that are no longer in the current revision while the article is being considered at AFD would surely land us at deletion review. Oversight is the appropriate venue for this. xenocidic (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. But I don't use policy, as it's usually used as a weapon against me, and no one at AfD cared one way or another about sitting around discussing an article with attacks against living people on them, so why should I? Or anyone on Wikipedia. I also admire how cleverly the attackers get away with using Wikipedia. And I don't admire how used Wikipedia is. Anyway, that's enough. I don't care about the article, the person, the attacks, it was merely something to do. --Blechnic (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No maybe about it - it's in the text of the tag you used, which I quoted above. WP:OVERSIGHT is not policy, it is a procedure to do what you have been asking me to do. Unfortunately, I don't have sufficient access to do it Fritzpoll (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you that was exhausting I thank you also for the reformatting tag Sincerely RichardBond (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to explain your decision regarding the article on Richard Marshall Bond. My concern was that the late Dr. Bond is the head of a non-notable company (see the red links). Also, it appears the article's author may have more than an academic interest in the subject (notice the name), and the author also has a surprisingly long history of creating articles that get deleted. I hope you don't take offense, but I would like to offer the article for AfD consideration. Thanks again, and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. As I suspected, there is some COI problems here: [2]