User talk:Jesup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please use a new section when starting a new talk topic. Thanks.

Contents

[edit] Open Tasks

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

[edit] NOR

Jesup, comment for you here. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bithdates

FWIW, I just made a suggestion on WT:BLP: ... any candidate representing a major party (i.e., after the primary or convention) for the US House, US Senate, or Governorship, shall be deemed a person who is public enough that their birth date can be included. While I do agree that privacy is a good think, I think most folks running for Congress are public enough to lean towards the current policy of well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public... -- Sholom 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hiya, thanks for the note. I went ahead and changed the prod tag to an AfD tag, so everything's linked properly now. And yes, I agree on the deletion.  :) --Elonka 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since you're also in the game industry, you might want to watchlist this page, to see if there are other AfDs that you'd like to participate in: Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Deletion. --Elonka 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
All the better, that way no one can accuse you of conflict of interest! :) --Elonka 22:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debbie Liebling

Please do not remove an independant reliable source from an aritlce. As usual, any such removal will be considered vandalism and reported. Thank you. --Oakshade 01:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC) This seems to have been interpreted as a threat and it was not meant to and my apologies if it came across that way. Instead of augmenting it so it doesn't appear so, I'll just strike the whole thing. However, if this disagreement continues, it will be best to seek mediation. --Oakshade 01:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NP, as far as I'm concerned the issue is closed. Thanks. If the article isn't deleted, then my argument stands - the citation doesn't add anything to the article. jesup 02:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

What do you mean POV? Dr. Madonna is the foremost scholar of Pennsylvania politics who is constantly quoted by the media. The fact is Gerlach won overwhelmingly in the GOP strongholds of Chester, Berks and Lehigh counties. That's a fact. There's no POV implied with mentioning that. Do you consider the Philadelphia Inquirer an unreliable source? --FidesetRatio 00:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URLs and trailing slashes

Hi. I notice you re-added the trailing slashes to the external links on Amiga. I believed as you do that a trailing slash was necessary, but after having looked at RFC 3986 (in particular Section 3), I came to the conclusion that a trailing slash is not necessary: specifically, "hier-part" can be "// authority path-abempty" where path-abempty can be the null string. It also looks to me like RFC 2396 does mandate the trailing slash, but this is obsoleted by RFC 3986.

Or is there something particular to HTTP that I'm missing here? Cheers --Pak21 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly RFC 3986 (approved in 2005) doesn't require the / anymore, but RFC 2396 did, and all (known to me) browsers insert the slash automatically if they find a URL (href, src=, etc) that is missing it. I don't know if all web servers handle slash-less URLs, since browsers (virtually) always insert them, the servers don't get much testing with slash-less URLs. FYI, I'm a 'driver' at mozilla.org (mostly inactive currently) and have done extensive work on multiple browser's internals. So it's a variation of "be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send". Who knows, a ancient or semi-homebrew Amiga browser might not insert the slash, and some webservers might not handle it missing. jesup 18:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I bow to your greater knowledge. Thanks --Pak21 09:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's actually a very minor issue (as per above, virtually all browsers add the /). More an issue of being pedanditic and not trusting webservers to be well-tested for an RFC adopted last year (that browsers hide from servers). jesup 12:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube

A youtube link that says here is the music/TV video is so clearly a copyvio that I am justified deleting it as it stands. I quite agree that other vids need reviewing. Please can you provide me with diffs of deletions that you think are incorrect? That will help me understand why/if I'm doing this wrong. --Spartaz 16:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I did review the video. Its clearly marked as belonging to artofjapaneseswordsmanship.com and was uploaded to youtube by priori2ude. The Sensei is called Niklaus not priori2ude.
Sorry but I see no evidence that the video is not a copyvio and the onus is on the linkee to demonstrate this. This is why youtube is an inherantly unreliable site to link from. There are vids on the sword site than could be directly linked from. That's why I removed the link and I suggest that unless you can demonstrate that the vid is not a copyvio you should remove the youtube link and link directly to the site. I'm confident with this deletion. Would you mind providing another diff to help me understand whether I have been doing this incorrectly. Thanks --Spartaz 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In other words you agree that its not clearly not a copy vio. In which case my deletion is justified and the rest of your objections are simply placing process above content. And I reviewed the video before I deleted the link and it wasn't clearly properly licensed so I deleted it. Simple? I'm going to delete the link again unless you can show its not a copy vio. Spartaz 17:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I have copied this over from Cacycle's talk page because I didn't want to clog up his page with this:

Unless I misread WT:EL#Video and photo sharing sites, there is no consensus for mass-deletion of YT links. Targeted deletion (WP:C, WP:V, etc) is ok (and most YT links probably fall into these), but mass-deletion is not. The repeated comment on all the deletions of Rm links to "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL, which I don't find in WP:EL. If I misread it, please show me where. Thanks. jesup 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer you to show us some diffs of deleted links that were removed inappropriately rather than argue about the process of this exercise. The vast majority of YT links are going to have to go because they are either copyvios, unverifiable and/or their free status isn't clear enough. If we make mistakes you need to show us them so that we can correct our actions. But let's focus on the issue - thousands of copyvios being tolerated in articles and not the process of their removal.
I'm sorry if I coming over a bit strong but its all going on around my ears at home right now and I'm having to do two things at the same time. I'm not trying to be difficult about your objections, I will slow down. I'm trying to respond to lots of comments all over the place and try and avoid it fragmenting any further. Spartaz 17:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Jesup, I've raised the issue twice on WP:AN and both time we've gotten vast and unanimous support. I'd call that a consensus for our project. However, we aren't mass-deleting anything and our actions are fully supported by policy. In the few times that anyone has raised a problem with our removal of a specific link we have discussed it at length. ---J.S (t|c) 20:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Spartaz and J.smith: If the youtube links from the list are indeed checked individually and are obvious copyvios, then an automated mass deletion would be ok. May I then suggest that you no longer use a wrong and/or misleading summary for your deletions - it is not about missing licensing information at an external site as stated in the summary, it is about obvious copyvios. Cacycle 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the summary we are using is fairly comprehensive. ---J.S (t|c) 21:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I updated the edit summary due to the battling over at WP:EL. ---J.S (t|c) 21:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesup - you seem more concerned about the edit summary than you do about the links to copyvios. We are updating the summary but I do think it would be more helpful if you could point me in the direction of an incorrectly deleted link so I can understand your objections to my actions better. If its just the summary, that's fine and fixed, otherwise we seem to be going round in circles. Spartaz 05:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned with that summary, and I'm concerned with an (apparent) mass-delete that appears (or appeared) to not involve actually evaluating the target. Even your response about the Katana video doesn't give me warm fuzzies that when evaluations are done that they're being done correctly. Your approach to that video says to me that it's "guilty until proven innocent", with no gray area. You can't look at that video (and the website in question) and say "it's blatant copyvio"; at best you can say is that it might be copyvio. If you're saying it's so blatant that no discussion or investigation or warning is appropriate, that calls into question the other edits you're doing. I'm also concerned that with the summary you were using, thousands of editors who don't read WP:AN (and I never have; I'm not an admin) will assume that youtube links are to be deleted without bothering to investigate. Someone else on WT:EL indicated that a video made especially for putting on youtube was deleted. Now, I don't expect 100% correctness - but it appears that the criteria being used to judge links is fairly arbitrary. In fact, what is the criteria? If there some sort of master list or criteria being used - where is it? Why was the decision made to remove (almost) all youtube links without warning by tagging the pages with the links for a short while? So, to wrap up - the summary is a big part of the problem in that it may lead not only to misunderstandings (as it did with me), but also to permanent misunderstandings by a large number of editors, which will cause a lot of aggravation in the future. But the summary is only part of the problem - the other part is the mass aspect without prior tagging (which is customary), and the apparent assumption of guilt on the part of youtube uploaders. We cannot hold youtube to per-video disclosure statements that we have here for media. That doesn't mean we ignore links to copyvio material - but it should mean we give some amount of credence to the TOS of youtube and uploaders when it isn't blatent copyvio. IMHO. jesup 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm really getting fed up with this - plus I'm tired and want to go to bed (some song coming on there except I'm sober). I must have spent 4 hours so far arguing this when I could have been doing something constructive. So far you have raised two deletions that you have found objectionable. How many deletions did you review to find them I wonder? I have made over 150 so far and I have no idea how many J.smith has done.
I realize you'll be surprised, but this first one I looked at was one of those two (which is why I joined the discussion), and the second I found after reviewing about 4 random pages from the huge list you're working from. jesup 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could try and keep this in perspective? If we make mistakes help us fix them by all means. Another pair of eyes is always useful but your argumentative crusade to find us guilty of the henious crime of deleting links to copyvios really seems overblown and the ultimate triumph of process over productivity. Please try and focus on the issue here. EL is a guideline. C is a policy which states inter alia
Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page.
The policy is clear - we don't link copyvios. You obviously don't trust us - fine. I'm sure that we would all find it useful to have a contrarian backstop to make sure that we are making the right calls in borderline cases but can we please try and do this with a little more oversight and a little less passion? Its making my head hurt and I'm sure its not helping us write an encyclopedia. Apologies for the gruff tone but I'm starting to get frustrated with the arguing - which is why I'm off for a real life cup of tea and an early night. Hopefully we can all come back to this tomorrow in a more constructive state of mind. Good Night. Spartaz 22:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and no hard feelings. I also just want to make this work; not knowing you/jsmith/dcmartin from j.random.editor I had no idea where this project came from, what the justification was, etc - all I knew is that it seemed to be a mass-deletion, and that's something I'm quite leary of. I also felt there was something odd going on in that the summaries looked like an attempt to ramrod something without actual justification. I know now more about what you were doing and why, and I don't think anyone was trying to bypass or game the system - but as you say, anyone can make mistakes, and decisions made in (semi)-private sometimes don't go over with others as well when they're implemented. And using auto-editing tools and high-rate changes that others can't keep up with tends to make people panic. Rest and we'll see you tomorrow, and thanks. jesup 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing broken refs

Thanks for the catch. I also responded on my talk but its more of the same.

Just so you know, I'm not really using a script - I'm just using AWB to sort though the articles more quickly and to get me an edit window to look at and edit. The problem with refs is that I find the markup confusing - a sign of age I'm afraid! I'm going to revise any future articles with links as refs manually so that I can review them after I am done. I'll also make sure I read the appropriate guidelines on refs before I do any more amendments to them so I can understand how they work a bit better.

You have the most amazing capacity for catching the odd mistakes. Very commendable and its not stalking because a) you are not harrassing me and b) I am very happy to have anyone review my contributions and constructively comment on them. Its a good way to learn and avoid future mistakes. If you wanted a quick and easy way to review my deletions try Special:Contributions/Spartaz and use the diffs to see before and after - it would make it very easy for you to see what I have done - even more if you have broadband and popups installed in your monobook as this would allow you to review my edits by hovering your curser over the button.

I really appreciate the helpful and constructive tone you have taken on this subject over the last couple of days and it has helped eliminate the stress I was finding from this project. ESpecially given, how fundamentally we disagree over this exercise. It's hard to see from my contributions but as a result of your input I have been taking considerably more care over the borderline deletions and have allowed a fair few to remain as non-commercial and therefore not copyvios. Thanks again. --Spartaz 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UIF-fanboy is back...

Don't want to break WP:3RR, if you would like to stop by on Universal Image Format (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock case

I've closed the case and reverted your page back to the previous version before the tag was placed there.--Isotope23 14:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI vandal

In addition to your friend, there was another too. That's primarily what pushed me over the edge. I was spending all my time trying to stop them, and got sick of it. Thanks for the information, there. :-) --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)