User talk:Sam/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] WP meetup

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup 3
  Date: September 16th, 2007
  Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
  San Francisco Meetup 2

- Leonard G. 02:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image categorization

Hi Sam. I've noticed that you've removed categories from several images (or images from categories? :-) with a request "Please don't categorize images in non-image categories". On what basis do you make that request? I've looked and the not found any policy/guideline to that effect. In fact:

I find the categorizations quite useful. Thanks, Saintrain 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (ps. I'm watching here if you want to reply here.)

My understanding of this is that the Wikimedia software includes image galleries for all category pages. That doesn't mean that they have to be used. It is up to each wikiproject to establish guidelines for the categorization of images. Most images should be uploaded to Commons. Commons, as a repository of media, encourages the categorization of media. Wikipedia, is not primarily a repository of media. Pictures should be uploaded to Wikipedia when they do not meet the licensing requirements to be used internationally. The problem with category pages full of images is that they become very long, and are slow to load for people on slow connections. This makes it more difficult to quickly browse through categories.
In these recent cases, the images are already in commons. As such, they are categorized at Commons, and the appropriate pages in Wikipedia can have a tag directing users to look in commons for more pictures. That is much better than categorizing the Wikipedia page.
I can recall some occasions when this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, and my recollection of consensus is to not put images in non-image categories. You can check the archives, or start a new discussion if you don't agree with the rationale I've just presented.
Even if images were categorized, it makes no sense to link them to versions in other languages. If a picture is to be found in many different projects, it should be posted and categorized in Commons. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael E. J. Witzel

Hi Sam, per our conversation, this is the BLP I was talking about. It's been calm for a bit, but a look at the history will show the nature of the slime machine to which this serious scholar and perfectly decent man has been subjected at our hands.Proabivouac 06:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I thought I'd stop by to say it was nice meeting you. Belinda is also happy and I'm trying to convince her to take up getting her account restored so she can edit again, as well. We'll see how my arbcom case goes (it looks like its going to be accepted), first, though. Maybe as a result of this case, it can be stipulated that she is a real, separate person, and thus can be allowed to edit again (even if perhaps on different articles than myself). Hope all is well and look forward to seeing you, and other wikipedians, at the next SF Bay Area meet! It was great to have the experience of meeting wikipedians off line, in the real world. I think if more editors did this regularly, it would go a long way to altering some bad behaviors that are all too common in the "online" world, divorced from the "real world." I say: an end to such false dichotomies! Best.Giovanni33 23:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
  • Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
  • Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter

The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any time to work on Category intersections?

See here. I don't actually have time, but might make time if things started moving on that again. Are you still interested in seeing something like category intersection implemented? Carcharoth 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial categories on categorization article

Hi Sam. I made a comment on the categorization article talkpage that you may be interested in [1]. Regards Hal Cross 04:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Sam. Here is the alternative line that I suggested on the categorization talkpage;
  • Unless it is self-evident that something belongs in a category, or if it is shown through reliable sources to be controversial, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option.
Do you think it is more appropriate, or would you suggest another formulation? Regards Hal Cross 08:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support by proxy

You should be aware that User:Hal Cross is using your comments on Wikipedia talk:Categorization to imply that you support his position in a content dispute. See [2] and [3] for examples. Orpheus 12:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] AFA and homophobia

I think we could use some more guidance in finding a solution to this. I feel like we're getting the category issue wrong on one hand, but on the other I actually think they are homophobic. I also feel like no one is really listening to anyone on the talk page anymore. I originally sided (for lack of a better word) with Hal which was very painful for me to do. My position changed when we began discussing the AFA and their involvement in the debate about homophobia in general. Well, the talk page has, unfortunately, degenerated back to most of the contributors saying the AFA is clearly homophobic and there is no controversy to the category and Hal saying that's not true and everyone else agrees. I'm trying to take a step back, because defending the AFA and Hal is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth. Any suggestions? AniMate 22:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFA

Thank you for stepping in - hopefully this will put an end to the volumes of unproductive discussion. Several editors have been asking that the discussion stop until new/salient points are raised, but to no avail. I would ask that you change one of your "rules" - we cannot work towards an NPOV version of the article accepted by everyone - that's far too broad. We should be working towards an NPOV version of the article that is accepted by a consensus as fitting the relevant policy. --Cheeser1 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a version acceptable to all good-faith editors should be a reasonable (and achievable) target. Orpheus 20:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
And that is just the change I made, as you were making the suggestion here... -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Great minds and all that. Hopefully this moderation doesn't need to last too long. I am mildly disappointed we didn't make it to a round megabyte of pointless discussion though, it would have guaranteed us a prominent place in WP:LAME. Orpheus 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes Sam, I also appreciate your efforts to help, and pace the Wikipedia process on the AFA article. I suppose you would realize by now that I'm definitely one of the editors out of the RfC that believes the categorical grouping of the AFA in homophobia is inappropriate. I believe any explanation of homophobia in that controversy will just be a stepping stone in the inexorable Wikipedia process of having the category removed from the article, and articles like it. I'll help out in providing reliable information for that stepping stone. I don't consent to the category, though I'll continue to abide by consensus whether or not consensus is being used to abuse or override NPOV policies.
Actually I have become more interested in how to better group articles on Wikipedia. As its such a technically flexible arrangement I would have expected that any conflict would be easy to circumvent. Its quite amazing to me how it hasn't been managed yet. The RfC was certainly useful for dealing with many articles that may relate in some way to homophobia, whether it be conceptually or just part of an accusation or controversy. Categorizing by issue rather than by pejorative or opinion looks to be the way forward, at least in terms of supplying the reader with a useful and balanced group of articles. Anyway, I'll make the most of the information collected, in order to help similar articles out in the long term. Hal Cross 08:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Sam/archivexyz

Just in case you notice, the above was created by another using to move warnings from his page toi yours. I moved it back and deleted the fake archive. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unblocking the Superman article

Hi. I'm interested in getting the Superman article unblocked at least temporarily because at some point someone wrote 'revert back' and that really bugs me. That's a redundancy and I'd like to go and take care of it. Whenever anyone says 'revert back' or 'reflect back' or 'report back' I go absolutely nuts. All I'd like to do is go in there and get that redundant word 'back' out. Thanks for your time. Argentarthropod 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How can I edit the redundant word/s out when there is no place to click on to edit? There is no [edit] to click on. Argentarthropod 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I was definitely logged in when I tried that, and as I said, there was nothing to click on so I could edit. Argentarthropod 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. Argentarthropod 22:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I can't make it any clearer than repeating the there was nothing for me to click on to edit. I thought that was pretty clear. At the Batman page, which you had also semiprotected, there was something for me to click on so I could edit, but not on the Superman page. My problem with this is that, even though you're not a comics fan, you took it upon yourself to semiprotect the Superman and Batman pages. You admit no one asked you to. You stated that you would unsemiprotect them upon request, but when I made the request, you refused. You rather curtly instructed, not asked, me to take my problem elsewhere. I wasn't curt or unfriendly to you. All I can say at this point is that I'm going to quit viewing these pages if I can't correct something like a grammatical error without crawling to you and begging for permission. I don't own a computer and my time using one at the library is limited. I do have other things to do with my time than diddle around with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentarthropod (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter

The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Category, again

In the spirit of doing something useful instead of arguing, how's this for a first pass at the homophobia debate section we discussed before? [4]. Orpheus 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco 4

Oh, and I never did back to you with my directory of deleted stuff ... here it is User:ProveIt/index -- Prove It (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello Sam,

Sorry, I did not notice that you were taking a wiki break. Thanks anyway for sorting my mess out. I do believe that it IS a fair use...

Anyway, talk to you when you get back.

astragale 07:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Classification

I don't think this should be a guideline; Wikipedia has plenty of pages in Wikipedia namespace that are simply information pages. If you feel strongly about this, please open a discussion on the talk page, and post a note at WP:VPP that you're proposing to change the page to a guideline. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:POL, A how-to or help page is any instructive page that tells people how to do things. These will of course be edited by people who have suggestions on how to do things differently. A how-to differs from a guideline in that the former explains how to perform a certain action, and the latter explains when or why certain actions are recommended. Pages like Wikipedia:Administrators aren't guidelines, for example. (I can supply lots more examples if you want.)
WP:POL also talks about a guideline page as reflecting consensus. May sense is that Wikipedia:Classification does not represent consensus in that it's not followed on the vast majority of category pages. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
If you still think this should be a guideline, I again recommend posting something at WP:VPP to that effect, and seeing if you get support. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter

The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info

Meta rename done - cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)