Talk:The Real World: San Francisco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] The Effect of Zamora and Rainey's Relationship on Zamora's Health

This page's description of Pedro's relationship with Puck makes it sound like Puck practically killed Pedro. I'm changing the pointed wording to be less POV. Turly-burly 05:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is no citable source that demonstrates that Puck's behavior directly caused Pedro's health to "further deteriorate", then this insinuation doesn't need to be there. It DOES make it sound like Puck helped Pedro to die when the article states that his antics made Pedro's health terrible. I have a feeling the causal connection is made as the result of viewer POV and doesn't belong. The reasoning for deletion of this was NOT "capricious". Turly-burly 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The article did not state that Puck "practically killed" Pedro, or "helped him to die". It stated that the stress of their relationship led to Pedro's deteriorated health, which was opined by Pedro himself, as he related to his friend Alex Escarno, and was cited on page 114 of Judd Winick's book, Pedro and Me. I did not insert any POV of my own. If you wanted, you could've just asked me this. Nightscream 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If it was written by Pedro himself, then I don't see anything wrong with one simply saying "Pedro said such and such..." Irk(talk) 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's written by Winick, who was his roommate and best friend in the house. I think he's a credible enough source to relate what Zamora said or concluded, and I did rewrite the passage to credit the assertion to Zamora. Nightscream 04:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Some time ago, I modified the images accompanying each housemate's mini-bio to remove the unsightly black lines that were on some of their edges, and then re-uploaded them. User: HeyNow10029, who uploaded the original images, took offense to this, accusing me of trying to take "credit" for his work. This was not my intent, since I merely wanted to improve the pics and the article, and never considered that who uploaded the original pics was important, since I've retouched a pic or two in the past in this manner, and since credit is not generally noted as a point of prestige on a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. User: HeyNow10029 did not accept this explanation, nor did he even respond on the issue of whether the newly-cropped images are better than the old ones. He reverted the article without any discussion on that point, much less his violations of the Good Faith and Civility policies. I reverted the article again, attempted to apologize to User: HeyNow10029, for the perceived slight, and went and put a credit to him on each of the pages containing the new, cropped images. I then saw that someone going only by the IP of 65.10.106.32, who has a very short contributions history, reverted the article yet again without discussion, or even putting anything in his Edit Summary. Whether this a sock puppet or acquaintance of User: HeyNow10029, I don’t know, but it would seem that we may need to ask for a consensus on the issue of which version of the photos is preferred, and possibility an Administrative action to resolve this edit war. My vote on the issue of the photos:

New ones. The black lines on the old ones are not only ugly, but removing them brings them in line with all of the other images on Wikipedia, which do not display such things.

Your thoughts on this matter are requested. :-) Nightscream 04:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New ones. per above --Bob 07:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New ones. I have had a quick look at both sets. To the casual observer the difference is modest but new ones do look better. Gaius Cornelius 12:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New ones although, in any case, I have my doubts about the fair-use rationale for that many pics in the article. Pascal.Tesson 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New ones RahadyanS 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New ones The new ones can stay, they are slightly better. --Mattarata 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New ones. Tabercil 23:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I'm not going to protect the article at the moment, but I do hope that you can quickly resolve this issue and WP:AGF. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00 30 January 2007 (GMT).

I should disclose that after beginning the post/vote above, I sought out others to participate in this vote by contacting others with an interest in Real World-related articles. I requested participation from 19 people whose names showed up in the History pages of this article and the Pedro Zamora article, at least two of whom are administrators:Mattarata, Ichabod, Otto4711, Ohyeahmormons, Grcampbell, Musicpvm, Madmaxmarchhare, Rich Farmbrough, InvictaHOG, Turlington, Martpol, Gaius Cornelius, Wolf530, Geniac, Tabercil, Pascal.Tesson, Kuru, RockMFR, and Woohookitty. I thought this was not only reasonable, but the prescribed method of dealing with conflicts like this. However, RockMFR reacted with a brief post on my Talk page with the heading of “Stop”, admonished me to read the Wikipedia policy against Canvassing, and deleted my post from his Talk Page. Since every now and then I learn of a new WP policy or rule, and this seemed to be another, I apologized for RockMFR, but in reading that policy’s page, it seemed that the salient points on that page (which I condensed here) seem to be:
“A reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not….The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem….Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion…”
The two main criteria here seem to be upsetting people, and contacting people based on their voting records. Well, the only person upset was RockMFR. I apologized to him, and requested his advice for future reference. Madmaxmarchhare also asked if I was certain that it was him that I wanted to contact, claiming he had nothing to do with the article, so I apologized to him as well. For the record, I have not contacted people according to voting records, since I have no idea what their opinions on this matter regarding images would be. In fact, I even had a disagreement with Turlington, which you can see at the top of this Talk Page, and I contacted him nonetheless. RockMFR indicated that I should only contact the “main” editors of the article, saying that I contacted too many. I’m not sure what the right number is, but admittedly perhaps 17 was too high. In any case, I apologize if I did not adhere to WP policy as closely as I could have, and if I’ve offended anyone. I, too hope that this can be resolving without locking the article. Nightscream 02:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You went back an entire year in the article's history and contacted 17 people about this?! Where do you find the time?! I don't know anybody who has that much free time. HeyNow10029 05:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It didn't take long. I just scrolled down the article's history page for people who edited it, and pasted the same request to each of the people. I was actually surprised when I got to the last person that it went back that far, and just did it before I went to bed that night. :-) Nightscream 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page now, I see very little wrong with it. Some suggestions I have were to maybe lower the amount of info on Pedro and put in a link to his respective article. Also, not to say he was a bad person, but seeing as how this is The Real World, I doubt Pedro was as angelic as his bio makes him out to be. An episode guide would also be suitable, to discuss the feelings everyone went through each episode (If anybody can attain one). Irk(talk) 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image issue settled

It would appear that the resolution to this problem was in the editing of the original images, instead of the replication and retouching of images. Nightscream was acting in the best interest of the article by attempting to update the images. However, HeyNow10029 and 65.10.106.32 (and possibly others) appear to have made quick reverts without realizing what Nightscream was attempting to do. Let's all try to keep WP:CIV in mind for next time. --Mattarata 15:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)