User talk:Sugarbat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Sugarbat! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Just Heditor review 01:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] I see you signed up at LOCE

Welcome aboard and have a pleasant stay! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I look forward to making myself useful.  :) I also see that you're in NC (which is next door to where I am right now, in Virginia) - go Tarheels! -- KK Sugarbat (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Tobacco

I see you're doing quite a bit of cleanup work on this article. I think they are largely constructive, useful, and generally a good thing, but I think you may find some people take exception to removal of cited content, such as with these edits: [1] [2] [3]. I am not exactly complaining, but it might be a good idea to take some of these to the talk page before deleting them wholesale. For example, I agree that weasel words are not appropriate, but if it is a direct quote from the source (which it may well be), then maybe we need to edit the text to reflect that rather than deleting it.  Frank  |  talk  21:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice (and that's real thanks, not the snarky fake kind) -- I do actually try hard to edit stuff before nuking it outright (and that's one reason I did those one by one, so if people want to, they can see each reason for each deletion), but I can't see a way to do that in many of those cases, since I have no direct access to the source text[s]. I'm also concerned about the style of the writing (sounds like someone who may not have a whole bunch of experience writing encyclopedic material? maybe hasn't looked at WP guides? Much?) and a little reluctant to use what's there to morph into quotes (or less weasel-sounding statements), in case what's left is still/more inaccurate; I'd almost rather force the writer into a state of miff that would send him/her to (at least) review WP:MOS before doing rewrites/adding new info to the article. I do hear you, though, and will take my lumps if they come. (And if you have time, please do review the deletions I just made, and if you can point me to specific one[s] you think I should have tried to edit, instead, I'll give it/them another go.) :) Sugarbat (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, take the third diff I listed above. Your comment was (in part): "(I want to know what "poision," under what circumstances, by whom, etc. - that's good stuff)". Rather than delete the line, perhaps you could go with something like this: "Grehan (p. 3) reported that tobacco juice was prescribed as an antidote for poison". Since we (you and I) don't have access to the source text, we can assume good faith on the part of the editor who put it in there but still indicate a bit of disenchantment by framing it as "Grehan reported". There's also the possibility of actually getting the book and seeing if more can be added from it. (Google Books, or a library, perhaps?) We should definitely consider that the source text didn't include any more detail than that. Although I agree it would be nice to know the details you asked for, it's probably interesting enough to retain even if those details aren't known to us, or in fact don't appear in the source.
We could go on with some more edits, but I think the best course of action is to do so on the talk page of Tobacco - and in some cases, perhaps before making the edits :-) But I appreciate the careful attention to separating out the edits with comments for each. This is already much better than a whole lot of edits we see every day around here, and will (as you say) provide the ability to comment on each one individually.
Finally, if I may add...forcing a "writer into a state of miff" might not be the best course of action. In such a state, most people are not going to calmly think "oh, I guess I'll go have a look at WP:MOS while I calm down." :-)  Frank  |  talk  22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Howdy -- I agree with pretty much everything you say, in principal, and it's possible that I'm hungover from working on another another article for the past few days (wherein I did make pretty significant efforts to reword/reformat instead of cut, only to have the edits reverted in mysterious and frustrating ways). It's hard to know how people are going specifically (individually) to react to edits -- especially deletions -- and I admit to not feeling altogether as willing, some days, as I am on others to reword instead of delete. Sometimes I operate under the assumption that if an editor is willing to add to an article in the first place, he/she must also be willing to rewrite as necessary, etc., and I do confess I get impatient when I come across completely unfiltered material (i.e., editors don't review the guidelines *at all* before hitting (1.) keyboard and (2.) "save"). I'm working on this shortcoming of mine; but I'm also trying to integrate a reasonably patient attitude w/the "be-bold" dynamic. We all have different styles (as editors) and mine does tend to be a little less touchy-feely than others. I also don't think that a deletion, per se, is rude -- and I'm not altogether in favor of reacting to deletion objections that are based solely on the fact that they (the deletions) occurred. Not that that's what you did -- but it does happen, and I think sometimes people are reluctant to make absolutely appropriate deletions (along w/the necessary edit summaries) just because they're scared of getting yelled at, and not because the deletions themselves aren't called for.
As for my "state of miff" thing -- that was mostly in the context of my reply to you, and not something I'd say verbatim on the discussion page of an article. (I know anyone can view my talk page, but I'm going to assume good faith on the parts of visitors, who will hopefully understand the difference.) I guess what I meant by that, anyway, was that based on the experiences I've had, in general, with WP editors, the style of the (specific) material I deleted (the style of which clearly did not match the rest of the article) led me to suspect that the chances of my edits (had I made any) being favorably received (or even understood) were on the low side. And that I'd be doing the original writer a bigger favor by "forcing" him/her into doing his own rewrite than by such a rewrite, myself. I hope that makes more sense? And sometimes being frustrated (about being deleted) does, actually, compel people to work to find out why it happened.
However -- I do (really) appreciate that you took the time to send me these messages, and your tips (and goodwill) have not been wasted or ignored. Sugarbat (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey - no problem. I've been half-watching the...reaction...to the edits to article, and I have to say it's not looking too pretty. Keeping in mind that I'm still assuming good faith, I'd like to respectfully suggest that you reconsider edit summaries that include "added fact tags - will delete section w/in 24 hours if sources not cited". This is likely to provoke other users.  Frank  |  talk  21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Agghh [general moan, not directed at you] - yes, I'm getting my butt kicked.  :) I did try and figure out a way to politely point out that I was leaving the section in even though I could have deleted it (again) because of (at least) the missing citations, and it was difficult to think (especially since I'm a "bonehead") of something brief that might not also come across as provocative. I may have failed in this regard; I admit it. I'm not touching that particular (etymology) section again -- at least for a few days -- because I feel an edit-war looming. (I haven't looked at the article in the last 30 minutes or so because I'm at work; there may already be more fireworks than when last I checked.) I'm glad you're at least keeping an[other] eye on things; third parties are pearls of great price. Sugarbat (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My joke...

The one on the spam page - I do apologise for it - it was flippant and likely inappropriate. My only defence was I guess it was "one of those days". I'd say something on the page but the conversation has gone elsewhere. Sorry --Herby talk thyme 13:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 :) Don't sweat it. My intention (in making the comment) was less about criticism of you/admins personally and more about the dynamic of effective and reasonable compartmentalization (and it didn't hurt "Adam Nicholson" that he made his first point lucidly and articulately, and separate from concerns about actual [as opposed to humorous implication of] corruption, etc.). I have no opinion (and no knowledge other than what's on that page) whatsoever of Nicholson/his company or his request for whitelisting, and after I first read the exchange in question, I moved away from the page to go on reading other things. My...conscience-bone? kept bugging me, though, and I had to go back and say my piece, after which Bob's your uncle and I slept quietly all night. Your apology (to me) is admirable, but not at all necessary. Sugarbat (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough & thanks for your views. I'm not so hardened as to ignore the views of others though I hope &, while at the time it was amusing, I probably should have known better. Thanks anyway & regards --Herby talk thyme 07:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Sand photo

hi - i'm so curious about the photo of George Sand you uploaded (Image:George Sand edit.jpg). i've been a fan of hers for quite some time and have never seen that shot before. where did you find it? and does the source give a date? thanks for any info you have. J. Van Meter (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no -- the source was a website (like a blog?) I stumbled on long ago. There, the photo was in a relatively elaborate (gilt?) frame, and I couldn't tell whether it had been photoshopped in the frame, or had actually been physically framed that way when the photo was taken (of the original photo). So after I downloaded it, I cropped it (in PS) and adjusted for artifact/contrast, etc. Before I uploaded it to WP, I poked around (mostly using Google image search) to see if I could find provenance, but got nothing, which is kind of a bummer because the photo is lovely. (I especially like it because it's neither one of the many taken when she was middle-aged, nor one of her in man's hat/dress, which, while of course accurately representative, tend in my opinion to be overused/over-referenced.
If you (or anybody) end up finding out anything about this photo, though, I'd love if you'd share it, especially if you can confirm the photographer's name. Sugarbat (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
to be honest, i don't think the photo is her. considering how young the woman in this photo looks, for it to be Sand the picture would had to have been taken virtually before existence of portrait photography. the popular (Nadar) photo of her was taken in 1864 when Sand was 60. back up 20 or 30 years, (or more, depending on what age you guess the woman in this photo to be) and i think you're just too early on in the history of photography for it to make sense that it's Sand.
-- i just found the website you mentioned (a perfume blog) as the source for the photo; i think the fact that the image is only showing up there, and not on any other site dedicated to Sand, is unfortunately another good indication that the photo is mislabeled. you did a great job restoring the picture, but if that was truly Sand i think surely it would have been published in other books or sites rather than just that one dedicated to perfume reviews. i don't want to rain on the parade, but i really don't feel comfortable with the claim that the image is Sand. J. Van Meter (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course -- if you think it's not recognizable, it ought to be removed; I guess, because I've looked at so many other photos of her (at different ages), it seemed (to me) unquestionably a photograph of Sand. If it *hadn't* looked like her I wouldn't have added it (of course), but it didn't occur to me that it wasn't self-evident. If you think it should be taken down on that basis, I can't argue (since I can't prove otherwise), but I'd like very much to see if I can find more information so we can include it.
With regard to the issue of whether it's believable as a portrait photograph (of Sand) because of the history of portrait-photography in general, I have to point out there's at least one (substantiated) photo extant of what appears to be a quite youthful Sand (see http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=2695454&text=%2522george+sand%2522, taken by Henry Guttmann; don't know the year, but not only her face, but her hairstyle and clothing certainly suggest pre-1840). While I totally agree w/you about dates/history of (portrait) photography raising doubts about early photos of Sand, the (Getty) image above suggests an even younger Sand than the one in the unsubstantiated one, and while photography, per se, was not commercially popularized until the mid-19th century, it certainly existed much earlier in Daguerreotype, and other, forms. I'm not saying this is enough to justify the latter's inclusion in WP, but I do think it serves as a glimmer of possibility I'd like to trace to a brighter light.
If you want to remove it right away, I understand -- but what do you think of giving me a couple of days to track down more info? I'm happy to write to the webmaster of the perfume site to see whether he/she can tell us anything about the photo, or at least where he/she got it. If I can't get info there, I'll check elsewhere -- I'm pretty sure I can substantiate it but it's going to take at least a day or two. Sugarbat (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your reply. i'm not insisting you take the photo down now - especially since i'm only going on a hunch. but yes, i do think it would be prudent to contact the perfume site and see what they know about the origins of the photo. i'd love for it to be authentic; but i'm suspicious since none of the sand bios that i'm familiar with include that shot. see what you can find out -- and i'll keep hunting around too. J. Van Meter (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Van M: Howdy -- I'm still working on it, but wanted to let you know, in the meantime, that you won't give me an aneurism should you decide to take the photo down. I got sidetracked by some urgent "real-life" stuff over the weekend and couldn't get to the library as I'd planned. Going to try and do it this week, but if at some point you do decide to go ahead and remove/replace the photo before it can be confirmed, I don't want you to feel like you have to announce it (to me) or that I'll scream murder if I see it gone. :) Sugarbat (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
ok. i'll take it down today but post a query on the talk page - maybe we can put some others to work trying to find a more reliable source for the photo id. J. Van Meter (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You had asked...

You had asked me not to delete or edit something on my talk page. However, I have archived it. In case you want to know where, here it is. Beam 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Beam! I'd asked you not to delete it only because I thought it was comical. I did see that you and that editor had some disagreements later, but at that point I don't think animosity had yet fully erupted, and his/her comments were worded in a funny way. Of course you're free to do whatever you like with your talk-page stuff -- I'm sorry if it sounded like I was issuing a directive or something; I really was just sort of applauding a funny exchange. But thanks very much for letting me know where it lives now. :) Sugarbat (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Etablished [sic] volunteers" exempt from criticism?

[Please note: In the below post, I am addressing ONLY the following statements made by HU12, and nothing else: "First, Adam Nicholson,[...]this is a MediaWiki page and is not a platform for your personal views[...]You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here for your own adjena [sic]. Faulting trusted, high-volume, etablished administrative volunteers for engaging in harmless humorous banter with other trusted, high-volume etablished [sic] volunteers is wholey [sic] inapropriate [sic]." I have no opinion about Nicholson's request for whitelisting, nor am I addressing WP policy regarding white/blacklisting.]

Hu12:

I understand you to be telling Nicholson (and all at-large visitors to this page):

1.) Don't object, on this page, to tasteless jokes made on this page.
2.) If a WP admin has hit the "save-page" button enough times, over a long-enough period, it doesn't matter whether the edits were appropriate because a certain (large) number of edits over a certain (long-enough) period of time automatically promotes said admin to "trusted" status.
3.) Based on the criteria in #2, above, it is forbidden to criticize "trusted" admins.
  • (For a variety of reasons, not excluding your tenuous handle on the English language) I was amazed to see that you're an admin. When I read your first response to Nicholson, above, I assumed you were just as much of a bystander (i.e., regular editor) as I was/am -- it wasn't until your tasteless response to my last post (wherein I advised you not to bite the newcomers -- see your "Chomp, chomp! ;)") that I clicked through to your user page. If I didn't consider such a diversion not the best use of my WP time, I'd seriously consider lodging a complaint based on your above posts. Your responses to both Nicholson and me belie not just your fitness as an impartial administrator, but your ability to effectively communicate with both guests and editors. Which not only compels me (speaking of "using Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion"!) to recommend you brush up on the conflict-of-interest guidelines, yourself (since I'm hard pressed to imagine a "consensus" of admins sharing your view vis à vis exemption, based on tenure/number of edits, of admins from criticism), but also leads me to my second point:
  • Can you show me any evidence to support your assertion that this "discussion" page isn't just a platform for posters' personal views, but primarily a platform for such views? Was this page not created for the express purpose of logging requests for, or comments about, either inclusion in a whitelist or blacklist? In other words, are the criteria for inclusion/exclusion not at least partially subjective (on the parts of both admins and the websites' advocates), and therefore, um, personal? It's not likely a poster here is extremely familiar with WP protocol in general (if he/she were, he/she probably would already have built the site to comply, or would at least have already known the reason[s] for exclusion and would therefore not have visited this page) or to know the technical, WP definition of "personal views," anyway, so please do consider not arguing that point on that basis.
The sets of discussions on this page, in particular, involve mostly people who, whatever their motivations, are unfamiliar with WP protocol (as mentioned above) and are therefore especially eligible for diplomatic treatment -- ESPECIALLY by administrators (or at least administrators behaving in good faith). An admin being rude anywhere on WP is unacceptable, but on a page that's devoted to the pleas of (as Nicholson aptly pointed out) strangers to WP who are already frustrated, it's not just unaesthetic -- it's counterproductive: How, precisely, is antagonizing someone who's already irritated good administration? (And if you're thinking, at the moment you're reading this, something like "most of the jackasses complaining about the blacklist are exploitative and underhanded," it probably won't hurt you too much to go ahead and click on the good faith link instead of ignoring it as you probably did a minute ago.)
  • It wasn't Nicholson who first deviated from the primary context of this page; it was the admins -- and if the joke hadn't been made in the first place, Nicholson would not have criticized it. As far as I'm concerned, the joke-issue has been more than sufficiently addressed by Herby and needs no other action on his part, but now I will ask you to explain yourself. I'm afraid I don't much see the difference between the "personal view" of a set of admins proposing (on the request-for-whitelist page) black-marketing the whitelist and Nicholson's "personal view" that such jokes are inappropriate on the request-for-whitelist page. If there is a difference, it must be that Nicholson wished to be taken seriously and his comments to that end more closely related to the stated context of the discussion page itself. Obviously none of this has occurred to you, and I'm actually a hundred times more annoyed by your post (directed at Nicholson, above) than I could ever imaging being by the jokey tangent in question, because not only are your points bogus, but you went out of your way to humiliate a newcomer. I find that attitude (and its manifestation) offensive in *any* WP editor, but frankly egregious on the part of an admin.
  • It is clear, from your statement: "Faulting trusted, high-volume, etablished administrative volunteers for engaging in harmless humorous banter with other trusted, high-volume etablished volunteers is wholey inapropriate," that you, yourself, would do well to do some reading (and not just of a dictionary). Another great reason for marvelling at your adminship is your inability to recognize your own ridiculousness in the form of your fallacious "logic." And will I, too, get an equally laughable carpet-calling, I wonder? Or do you think you're immune, too? Sugarbat (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Look. Its a MediaWiki page, which is used to provide database structure to the MediaWiki software. General editing to the talk page is for the propose of requests, and is not intended as a "talk" platform outside discussing those changes. Here are the general guidelines for the article namespace, which may be strictor in the MediaWiki namespace.
  • Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.
  • Adam Nicholson (communications director NutrientSearch.com) was here for his own adgenda Special:Contributions/98.215.229.241.
  • Personal attacks
    • "For a variety of reasons, not excluding your tenuous handle on the English language) I was amazed to see that you're an admin."
    • "Your responses to both Nicholson and me belie not just your fitness as an impartial administrator, but your ability to effectively communicate with both guests and editors. "
    • "you, yourself, would do well to do some reading (and not just of a dictionary). "
  • On a side note; About good faith - This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.
And your WP:POINT is ? If you have issue, lets discuss.--Hu12 (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's obvious I made several points, and even asked some direct questions. I'm sorry if you're unable to determine what they are, but your inability to recognize them doesn't quite justify my simplifying them for you. I will give you a couple of hints, though. Read the above again, keeping an eye out for: 1.) Bullets, and 2.) Question marks.
I'm not sure why you think criticism of your adminship could possibly be considered a "personal attack," but I'm not surprised to see that you reacted that way. In fact, I predicted it (see: And will I, too, get an equally laughable carpet-calling, I wonder?) While I'm not laughing, I'm also not doing much of anything else, because there's almost no substance to your response. For future reference, a more-effective rebuttal to professional criticism is to refute it professionally, and not just label the criticism as an "attack." Not only did I not "attack" you personally, I made no accusations that weren't related very specifically to your original post on the whitelist page, and to your qualifications as a Wikipedia editor and/or administrator. If you believe that my criticism is inaccurate or mistaken, you are, of course, free to say so. Simply inviting me to "discuss" the issues I already addressed seems sort of moot to me, unless the invitation was rhetorical. But rhetoric, frankly, doesn't seem quite your style. Sugarbat (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I know Wikipedia articles aren't "blogs" or "discussion forums." But a page in Wikipedia's back-end, especially if a section of that page is titled, literally, "discussion," is, in fact, a legitimate venue for discussion. As I pointed out, Nicholson was REACTING TO A POST MADE BY A GROUP OF ADMINS. It was that group of administrators who broke the rules before anyone else did, by making the joke about taking money for inclusion of websites in the whitelist. If you're criticizing me or Nicholson for discussing ANYTHING not germane to the "propose of requests (whatever that is)," then you might as well include that group of admins in that same criticism. I can't believe you don't see this, and I'm further frustrated and appalled by your refusal to address it, and your refusal to acknowledge your own infraction (see your "Chomp, chomp!" related to my request that you not bite newcomers).
Let me state, once again, to be perfectly clear: I am NOT interested in criticizing the original admins for making the joke on the whitelist page. As far as I'm concerned, that issue is over. The only reason I bring it up at all is that you seem to have forgotten it, and its significance as the issue that started this whole exchange in the first place. Sugarbat (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)