User talk:WCFrancis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

</\>


Contents

[edit] Welcome to Visitors

Stern and pompous looking self portrait taken at work. Note time - I hadn't had enough coffee yet. "Obviously", added a minor vandal.
Stern and pompous looking self portrait taken at work.
Note time - I hadn't had enough coffee yet. "Obviously", added a minor vandal.

Hi, all. Welcome to my User talk page.


Since it's mine, I'll make some requests. (no, I did not say "rules", but it is up to me, within limitations.)

  • Please sign your input with 4 tildes (~~~~).
  • Please register and login before you leave me a note.
  • I will not edit your entries with any intent to deceive but I may correct minor errors, such as grammar and spelling. I may also highlight them, depending on your attitude and my mood.
  • If there is any doubt about your meaning, I'll ask for clarification on your User talk.
  • If you have any doubt about my meaning, please feel free to ask.
  • You may note I like to keep both sides of exchanges here. I realize not everybody does this, but I like having the continuity of a discussion right in front of me.
  • I may also use this space for commentary.
  • I may put old (signed) messages in linked archives at my discretion. I just made the first move. I will put continue to put links in the next section as I create new archival pages.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? Updated 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


And remember:


Facts are never subject to consensus. [1][2].


Got something to say? Please click here to leave me a new message.

[edit] Archives

  1. Archive 01
  2. Archive 02
  3. Archive 03
  4. Archive 04

My Standard Disclaimer:

Archives may not be in actual date order and may not include all entries, just those I consider notable significant.
To date I have not flushed any items. Any talk page entries not here are in archives. So far. -WCFrancis 17:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking the Wild Vandal

I do not have any statistics, but I occasionally look at the Recent Changes made by individuals with only IP addresses. Some are vandalizing. This quasi-random sampling of vandalism shows that almost all cases are reverted within five minutes and many are reverted in seconds. Once I discovered that I was trying to revert simultaneously with another user.

The vandals must not realize that they can't even get 15 minutes of notoriety out of their defacing of entries. I can't understand what the payoff is for these people. What is the fracking point? Unfortunately, I also can't get the disgusting image out of my head of a drooling moron in soiled adult diapers sitting in front of a computer giggling uncontrollably at his cleverness and wit.

WCFrancis 17:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. The negative "creativity" could be put to such better uses. I am reminded of the frustration of young and confused Holden Caulfield in J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye who was discouraged by all the "F---You" graffiti he found and the hopelessness felt that although he worked fervently at eradicating it, undoubtedly even more was being "created" faster than he could get rid of it. Fortunately, WP seems blessed with the opposite ratio, or at least a balance. I also scan all changes to my 1400 watched pages for IP addresses, and I find a large proportion are vandalization entries. BTW, if you are not a WP admin, you should become one, as there are better tools available for helping in this effort. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:23, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Mark - Thanks - I think. I don't know whether I'm ready for being an Admin. I still think of myself as a newbie. After all, I only started in early March 2005. WCFrancis 05:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
That's all good. Just pass along any notice you take of "significant vandals", which I define as those with multiple edits and/or particularily malicious or pornographic edits. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 05:20, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Jeez. I was going to copy my response to your talk page after switching computers (so my wife could use the Velocity) and you beat me to the punch. WCFrancis 05:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] LCP info

Good info on LCP superfund site. I'd suggest it should go over to the Brunswick GA article. Thought I'd ask you first. -- WCFrancis 20:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think it should go there. Just yesterday we heard on the radio something about superfund sites and how only a few of them had been cleaned up, and I asked about the one here. Bubba73 20:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe Glynn County. I do not remember whether the property is inside the city limits or not. Checking...-WCFrancis 02:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It is outside the city limits, but not too far. Glynn County may be the better article to include it. Cross references between articles on lacal areas will ensure that folks can find it. Current owner is Allied Signal, according to County online GIS. --WCFrancis 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought there was something about it at Brunswick or Glynn, but I don't see it there. It is a Brunswick address, so it could go in either. PS: It is mentioned at St. Simons, Georgia. Bubba73 03:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I moved it into both Glynn County and Brunswick pages, since I still haven't decided which it should be in. -WCFrancis 13:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glynn County Superfund sites

From Info on Georgia Superfund sites. I added info on inside/outside City Limits.

Brunswick Wood Preserving GAD981024466 Unincorporated area
Hercules 009 Landfill GAD980556906 Unincorporated area
LCP Chemicals Georgia GAD099303182 Unincorporated area
Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall GAD982112658 Within City Limits


Recent news - EPA official has been questioning value of Toxaphene testing done for the Hercules sites. WCFrancis 14:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water

Okay. Topic articles include Water, Drinking water, Tap water and Bottled water. Is this getting out of hand? May be necessary to do merge & redirect -- WCFrancis 06:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, note the definition that leads off the wastewater article is: "Wastewater is any water that has been adversely affected in quality by any anthropogenic influence." which is true but an awfully high-falutin' was of saying "used water". --WCFrancis 06:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rover

Check the Prisoner Companion (if it can be found) for further info on original rover. I remember reading it was a driverless Volkswagon that sank (in spite of the VW ads). -- WCFrancis 13:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • IMDB has this to say in Trivia:
"Rover", the menacing white balloon that acts as a surreal sentry in The Village, was supposed to have been a large robotic machine. During the filming of the first episode, it was supposed to travel across water on a pair of rails hidden under the surface. The machine fell off the rails and into the water, damaging the motors inside. Just then, a weather balloon passed by, and McGoohan came upon the idea of "Rover" being a large white balloon that traveled by itself. The reason the cast stands still as Rover wanders past is because the balloon is being pulled by a wire. The shots were then run backwards, and edited into the film (In one episode, smoke can be seen drifting back into a chimney in the distance as Rover passes by).

-- WCFrancis 13:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I really don't see how the subject of that USF profesor telling his kids to express themselves as unique individuals using a medium that he thought was free to all ideas and speech has anything to do with you making such a pompous comment about vandalism. It really doesn't make you sound smarter nor does it give you any more authority... it really just makes you look like an ass. Yes he made a simple mistake but sending "stern" e-mails to the president of that university is kind of rediculous is uncalled for because you are messing with that guys job for making up a word... Get Over It.

71.100.15.176 16:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, Tampa.

Before you sound off on the topic of vandalism I suggest you review Wikipedia:Vandalism. I am not defining what is vandalism on Wikipedia; that has been defined already.

I expect a certain level of responsibility from a professor. That responsibility extends to checking out what he thought was "a medium that he thought was free to all ideas and speech" to understand the limitations that are agreed on by the community and monitored by unpaid volunteers. Performing acts of vandalism (again, not MY word) is bad enough; many users are kept quite busy cleaning up the messes made by individuals who make "deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". But to deliberately incite and even require this kind of activity is totally irresponsible for a professor.

My comment referred back to a suggestion to block all IP addresses from the University of Florida. I thought that the President of the University should know about this before he found out otherwise that no one at USF could edit anonymously.

I am not "messing with that guys job for making up a word".

  1. "That guy" is responsible for his own actions.
  2. "Making up a word" is not a problem. Posting it on Wikipedia as a hoax is a problem.
  3. There is no way to assume good faith based on his actions.
  4. I was suggesting an alternative action. I did not personally take any action; I did not send email or letter.

As for my use of "stern" it was in the sense of "this is serious". I will accept that the choice of word may have been better. "Polite but stern" was the exact phrase, and it was used as an echo of the previous entry (by another editor) which used that exact phase.

Other things you may want to review:

[edit] To other readers of this

Reference Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects#University_of_South_Florida

There is additional interesting discussion at the link, including response from Alex Duensing. WCFrancis 15:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
No longer there. Link will only take you to the top of the current page.wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of South Florida

It has been reported that Alex Duensing, adjunct professor of English at the University of South Florida, has been setting his students homework involving creating made-up words and posting dictionary articles about them to the encyclopaedia to promote their made-up meanings, in violation of the Wikipedia is not a dictionary, [is not a soapbox], and no original research official policies.

The homework for the next class is to come up with a word, write the definition, and post it to Wikipedia, a community encyclopedia on the Internet that allows anyone to write an entry on any topic. It's the perfect medium for a reality-questioner like Duensing. Once a word is there and defined, he argues, who can say it's not real? — "For unconventional USF teacher Alex Duensing, life is what you make of it.", 2005-09-07. 

WikiLex (AfD discussion), one such identified dictionary article on a made up word, has been listed for deletion.

Kiyama (AfD discussion), another found by searching the Special:Newpages for ". . 131.247", which is the IP range for USF.

Searched Newpages from 00:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC) back to 03:24, 3 September 2005 (two found, listed above).

  • Here are a few more that don't check out on Google, and should perhaps be VfDed:
    • Uroinvixi
    • Wikistupidity
    • Definition of Sariacc
    • Numpty
    • Mohoger
    • Japsoc
    • Gavilan
    • Jazzbo
-SimonP 00:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Folks--I just became aware of this. I've got an email and phone call into Alex. I suspect he didn't understand how wikipedia works. It is not uncommon for instructors in our program to assign work on wikipedia so I"m hopeful you won't ban USF based on 1 problem....Thanks for your patience. Joe Moxley
  • I just wrote him a polite but stern e-mail, telling him that this is vandalism, that it's in explicit violation of official policy, and that if it continues then all IPs belonging to the University of South Florida will be blocked from editing. DS 17:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A polite but stern email and letter to the President of the University of South Florida informing him of this behavior might also help, letting him know why his IPs are about to be blocked. I would think that the abuse contact should also be notified. It disturbs me that a professor would be creating a team of vandals. What message is he sending? _WCFrancis 02:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • May be coincidence but Numpty is a dialect term in the UK. I know a lady who was born in Northamptonshire who uses it regulary to describe someone who is a bit thick (as in dim witted). Nevertherless this stupid project should be stopped ASAP. Apwoolrich 18:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • 294,000 google hits. It definetly deserves a mention on Wiktionary. All things considered, I'd fail the student who created it for not checking google first :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I do appreciate Wikipedia's democratic approach, and I do apologize for not being more familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines--I do not promote vandalism. I am, however, not sorry for creating and promoting 'wikilexing'; I believe that every individual has a right and responsibility to invent the ideas that comprise our shared conceptual sphere.

Granted, the guidelines state Wikipedia is not a place for the publication original thought. Only material that is newsworthy or available in other reputable (usually secondary) sources is appropriate for Wikipedia. Yet, this brings me to a matter I fail to understand. Why do we deny individuals the right to publish their own ideas on this site when a small public relations firm can do so with ease? They can get their information into "reputable sources" with little effort. Should I simply allow good wikilexes to be published on my site or in my newspaper columns before they are posted to Wikipedia? If so, I certainly will. There is little I won't do to assist individuals as they engage in their fundamental right to shape reality.

I realize that this position poses a challenge to the way Wikipedia works, and that many of you may find these efforts disagreeable. However, I do, in the democratic spirit of this site, hope we can work out these matters without threats and in constructive dialectical manner.

After all, I do consider myself a noblist.

Very Many Best,
Alex Duensing

A word, term or idea must not only be printed in a reputable media source outside of wikipedia before it may be added here, but it also must be in common (broadly defined) usage or thought. Wikipedia reflects the general understanding and view of the world. One person's made up term does not fit that definition. Your best option would be to create your own wiki (or use urban dictionary or another service for neologisms) where you can generate such content. Please do not encourage the addition of content merely to prove a point, create new ideas or shape reality. Wikipedia tries to reflect reality not shape it. This link is Broken 00:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
We are glad to see you here. Please consider registering as a first step towards a good dialogue. Now, let me address your specific points. 1) I doubt that any PR firm can do what you suggest, we have experience with removing advertisments, orginal research and such. It doesn't really matter if it is one person, a class or a firm - we have simply too many Wikipedians 'on the lookout' for such problems (I recommend you familiarize yourself with the size of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion project). 2) As for your project: publishing a word on your website does not mean it is relevant to be used in Wiki. Publishing it in an academic journal and getting some newspapers would be better, and if you can make people use it without your prompting, then its even better (as far as the criteria of inlcusion in Wiki go, see Wikipedia:Notability and related pages, and note that majority of your student articles were deleted because they were patent nonsense). Please note that you cannot start with Wiki as the source to 'spread the knowledge'. Not only our various policies are against it, but as you have just seen we have efficient technical means to stop such attempts before they have any visible impact (or damage...). Of course there are always exceptions; we have ourselves invented some words here (to wikify, a wikipedian). But we didn't do it 'for fun' or to 'prove a point', those words were invented because they were needed. New needed words are invented all the time, but the key word here is needed. Anybody can write gibberish on the web and even make it googlable, but I very much doubt it you can make it notable, not without a significant following to prove some point (see nigritude ultramarine for example). If you can create such a significant following for your purposes, that it would make you notable and we would surely allow your word(s) to be added to Wiki. 3) Bottom line is that we deny the individuals the right to publish 'their stuff' here beacouse majority of us decided this is not appopriate for us and that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is no place for orginal research. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address my views. I hope that I can return the favor.
1. Matters posted on Wikipedia need to reflect in common (broadly defined) usage or thought. Is there a yardstick for what constitutes "common usage or thought?" How many people must opt into a concept before it is up to Wikipedia standards?
2. Shaping reality is what I do. I will not encourage individuals to post directly to Wikipedia to this end. However, I will work to get worthy concepts into the news, into "reputable sources" and into "common knowledge." Once an idea makes it into these-- Wikipedia, as Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus seems to indicate, is fair game.
3. A small PR firm would be probably not be able to get their material directly onto Wikipedia. Unlike some news and other "reputable" sources, Wikipedia will not publish information from press releases -- at least not until someone else has.
4. I am not doing this "for fun" or "to prove a point". Both I and Nex Real Design (the organization I work for) strongly espouse the rights of individuals to create their own terms and realities.
Hope this answers your concerns.--Lexlander 21:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The yardstick used varies, as it reflects the Wikipedia community as a whole. Generally, "notability" requires a pretty good showing in terms of Google results. I appreciate your philosophy and intent, I think I do speak for the community when I say that we don't exist to serve that purpose. Geocities has been around for a long time now, so has Blogger; it's possible for anyone to set up a web page with their "own terms and realities" and get an audience for them. Wikipedia thanks you for your respect of our project boundaries. --Dhartung | Talk 19:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
To be a little more precise on that remark about notability: obviously, we often turn to Google searches because they are easy. If a wide variety of sites (especially scholarly sites, established news sources, etc.) are using a term in a given way, we tend to assume that it is well-established. Similarly, this is one easy way to establish that a person or institution is "notable". This works well for matters of widespread contemporary concern in the English-speaking (or at least Latin-alphabet) world. It's trickier for something whose main fame was in the distant past, or is in (for example) the Tamil- or Bulgarian-speaking world. And trickier yet for oral cultures that are only moderately documented. Our threshhold for notability varies a lot with subject matter. We would seriously doubt any claim of an important porn star or American politician who didn't pass the "Google test", but one or two good scholarly citations might be enough on a 19th-century Yiddish-language actor or a tribal ritual from deep in the Amazon. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

From the earlier version of page just before it was removed. Copied 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


I have kept this message in spite of the lack of registration of the sender (see second request in Wecome to Visitors above) because I thought it was worthy of a serious response. -WCFrancis 17:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Pointless update two years later: I posted this on the Numpty talk page.

"Numpty" appeared as a made-up word entered in 2005 when students at the University of South Florida were assigned homework involving creating made-up words and posting dictionary articles about them to Wikipedia to promote their made-up meanings. In the discussion of the inadvertent vandalism (if those words can be used together), Apwoolrich entered this side comment:

"May be coincidence but Numpty is a dialect term in the UK. I know a lady who was born in Northamptonshire who uses it regulary to describe someone who is a bit thick (as in dim witted)."

The note on the deletion of the talk page1 included this from Crazfulla: "This word is verified via the external link given. You could ask any scottish person as to it's origin." Gee. Wonder what the external link was?

If this is true there needs to be referenced information here; if not the empty entry needs to be removed. Even so the entry maybe needs to be transwikied to Wiktionary.

15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC) wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments?

1 Why delete the talk page without deleting the article page????

[edit] Fuckthesouth.com

There is currently discussion on Articles for Deletion regarding an article titled Fuck the South. Afd Link. The article is about a web site Fuck the South. The article also includes link to Southern Myths, one of several websites created in response to and as rebuttal against Fuck the South

[edit] My off-topic rant

Once I read the Fuck the South site, I had to put the following on the AfD page. If I was out of line, I hope I will be forgiven. I did not look at the other site before I did; I probably shoud have. I recommend doing that before you become airbourne from the grip (fly off the handle) if you are from the South and/or if you are upset by the spew of hate.

  • Abstain at this time, because I am too disturbed by the website itself. I am from the South. The website that the article refers to is a hate-filled misinformed rant directed against a small percentage of southerners, the ones Hollywood uses as cliché villains. Yes, there are Bubbas who own assault rifles and fly the Confederate battle flag (and might not recognize any of the real Confederate flags). They are a minority. This is the Bible Belt so there are people who think they are Christians preaching hate against homosexuals. Those two groups alone do not make a majority, but voting with other conservatives and some moderates get a slight majority. Nationally, in the 2004 presidential race Bush received 50.7% and Kerry received 48.7% of the of the popular vote. To assume that everyone in the South thinks the same way based on which party wins elections is just wrong. The web site just is another divisive factor in the United States, based on regionalism instead of some other prejudice. Ask yourself as you think about this AfD - is notoriety the same thing as notability? I will vote later, after I have had some time to think and to review the Wikipedia article for NPOV and to review policies. -WCFrancis 23:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I put this here 00:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC) -WCFrancis

[edit] My First Vote

I gave this some thought and surprised myself with this :

  • Taco Deposit did a good job on keeping the article here NPOV. Rant itself is quite stale; that is it was posted a couple of days after the election and there appears to be no new material since. Why someone is so filled with hate as to pay to keep it up is a mystery. However, I feel that documentation of divisive elements in the US itself is notable. Weak Merge with Election Controversy section of US Presidential Election 2004 article would be something I would prefer to keeping it as separate article. -WCFrancis 04:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I added this:

[edit] The Return of FucktheSouth.com

00:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Well, folks, It's been on Articles for Undeletion and has returned to AfD for a second round. My entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck the South 2 follows:

  • Delete I voted in the previous afd after I posted a rather off-topic rebuttal to the subject web site (apologies again), but that included the question "is notoriety the same thing as notability?" which I consider to still be apropos and on topic. After I cooled off and reviewed the article and rebuttal sites on the web, I became the sole Merge, suggesting Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide#Polarization and Election Controversy section of US Presidential Election 2004 article as alternatives to provide some information regarding divisive elements in the US which I think is notable in appropriate article(s). I expressed that I preferred that to keeping it as separate article. I should have included that this was not a keep but Delete if not merged. WCFrancis 00:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Userfied at User:Xoloz/Mythoughts

[edit] Xoloz comments on the South from his viewpoint

Howdy WC,

I'm from the South, you know; I've got family there that I love (although I can't talk politics with them), I know there are liberals there fighting the noble fight, and I can't find better food anywhere -- when I make a condemnation of "The South," I'm not condemning every person, or even every aspect of the culture.

One of the primary reason for my stridency is this: at least in my experience, "not rocking the boat" is a key part of the Southern mentality. For example, I spent six of my formative years in Lynchburg, VA, the home of Jerry Falwell. Plenty of people there despise (even in his lion's den, as it were), and will secretly say he's a bit of a baffoon. But, ask them to take a stand, and you get, "He's a preacher; I can't do that!"

Now, I'm also multiracial. And, living in MS, I've had people of color (still afflicted by the double veil of consciousness) refuse to speak up when they been scorned, mocked, or (more rarely nowadays) subject to de jure discrimination. "That's just the way things are down here" has not died out as a refrain.

So, what I am to do? I don't feel like condemning my relatives of any color for lack of courage -- I know why they think what they think. And, it's unfair, in a way, even to single out one person as a target of my anger -- they are products of their culture. I'm left to rail against "the culture" as a deliberately amorphous and appropriate target. Something is broken in the South's social system, and it has been since 1619 at least. In a way, its gotten "better", but really its just become subterranean and harder to classify.

All of this is something I keep to myself most of the time, since I am fortunately safe in Yankee-land. However, when I saw people calling "FTS" "a hate site," I sorta lost it. This is why the comparison to the Nazis rose to the front for me. As I explained to Blackcap, for me, calling "FTS" a "hate site" is like calling Simon Weisenthal a "hate-monger" for Nazi hunting. Sure, FTS and the late Mr. Weisenthal, in a strict sense, "hate" their targets; but this "hate" -- also my "hate" -- is of a different, more justified kind than, say, AryanNations.com -- plenty of people of color hate the South for its crimes against them and their ancestors, and we are not alone, as I listed the aggrieved in my comment.

If one thinks FTS is vulgar, well it is, but that isn't a ground of deletion; if one thinks it non-notable, fine, although I suspect it was only non-notable where they lived. But calling it a "hate site" is such a complicated, vexing claim -- with a bit of truth, but only after great qualifications are made -- and to call it such offhand, as part of a three-word comment, apparently without much thought (as many did) -- that was it: I had to speak out against what is in my view a gross over-simplication, and I do not regret doing so.

I do not believe the South is on par with Nazi Germany; I use such rhetoric to remind people (especially complacent Southerners) that it used to be 140 years ago, and, in the spirit of prevention, it could be again, since the theocrats, with whom I am also well-acquainted, are dangerously powerful done there. I do hate "the culture", not individual people, as much as I hate anything, because "the culture" allowed one-half my ancestors to enslave, scorn, and murder the other half. Although I, as a spirtual person, always work toward discarding my hate, I'd be a liar to say that I have succeeded in this matter as of yet.

So, I like any liberal, any real intellectual, any modern Democrat anywhere, and I understand that the South makes them: it made me. But the South and I have some serious problems, and they are the kind of problems I can't mask over when I feel the need to speak out.

If I changed your vote on the AfD, I thank you for your consideration. I have not gone back there because I've said what I needed to say, and I don't want to lose my temper needlessly. I do hope you understand. Whether you do or don't, feel free to write anytime. :)

Thanks, Xoloz 07:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It is a delight to meet you, in spite of the subject of our conversation. I think that we feel similarly regards my adopted home and your birthhome, within the limitations imposed by other accidents of birth. We expressed our feelings differently a the AfD page but this conversation has helped me understand. Thanks again.WCFrancis 13:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Local stuff

-WCFrancis 23:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

To Bubba73 on his talk page:

  • Just did some research and made some minor edits to Battle of Bloody Marsh including removing siesta reference you questioned. Still a stub but better, I think. -WCFrancis 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is AfD broken?

I just read an analysis of Wkipedia problems at User talk:Doc glasgow/wiki-musings and left these comments on that page for Doc Glasgow

  • - your analysis is well thought out. I see Wikipedia as anarchy in spite of founders' comments that it is not. The only solution I can perceive is requiring registration and login before any editing is allowed. I agree that this is not wiki-like, but many vandals have learned how to game the system by logging off their ISP and logging back on to force a new IP address to be assigned. This would not solve all the problems, and it would likely result in thousands more sockpuppets for blocked users, a distinct disadvantage without verification of identity for issuing login, even less wiki-like. There is no good answer. Especially since it appears that more growth is happening with vandals and newbies (who don't want to bother with such things as actually reading policies and guidelines before they edit). It appears to me that we need broader criteria for Speedy Deletion as well, to reduce the AfD load. -WCFrancis 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Articles Clogging AfD

The arterial plaque of Wikipedia: (not in any order):

  1. Garage Bands
  2. Websites
    1. Web-Comics
    2. Blogs
    3. Webforums
  3. Stubs that could have been redirected
  4. Lists unmanageble and POV. (If this were an article it would describe itself).

Note to visitors: you are encouraged to add to this list if you desire. Admins/scripters: numbers would be great. WCFrancis 05:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harlan and Gabe comment

Posted on Talk page for Harlan Ellison:

  • I agree stongly with Codemonkey that this rumor-mongering is totally out of place if Wikimedia is serious about being a real encyclopedia. It is highly POV (It was worse before the mention of Ellison's comments) reporting of a minor incident. I happen to believe Harlan's version. Giving weight to a rant posted on the internet by someone who either could not make the effort to even spell "Harlan" right in his posting or thought it would be a cute insult to spell it incorrectly is as inappropriate here as the personal attacks in that rant would be. Keeping it here weakens Wikipedia. If it were to result in an edit war, then page protection would be in order.WCFrancis 09:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what it said.

"On September 25, 2005 Ellison made a perceived slight to Mike "Gabe" Krahulik of Penny Arcade at the 7th Foolscap science fiction convention. Krahulik described his version of the encounter on his web site, including an urban legend connected to Ellison. [2] The urban legend has been discounted by snopes. [3] Ellison posted a response on his own website, claiming he never intended to insult. [4][5]"

I just removed this. We'll see what happens. WCFrancis 03:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

More: From the con chair on the alleged incident.

Hank Graham <foolscap@comcast.net> Seattle, WA - Tuesday, September 27 2005 14:18:9 ANOTHER word from the chair *sigh* Harlan didn't put on a hat because Harlan wasn't provided with a hat. It was A JOKE. We had cheap, silly-looking jester's caps for Gabe & Tycho, and a legal pad (another type of "foolscap," for those of you who didn't know) for Harlan. I think Harlan was mildly amused by this nonsense, as he was meant to be. (And if he wasn't, I expect he'll let me know.) The look on his face while I was handing out the hats was the setup that made the payoff worthwhile. In any event, he gave a mild smile when he saw the paper, and realized that no, I was not going to try to get him to wear a silly hat. Gabe wasn't trying to needle Harlan when he asked if Harlan would like to wear one, I think, although it may have been perceived that way. Due to some scheduling problems, we were not able to have Gabe & Tycho around the convention as we'd have liked. That's actually part of the reason we ended up overworking Harlan. Among the missed opportunities there, I had hoped to have panels where all of our GOH's could meet. Gabe and Harlan are a lot more similar than they are different, and they share a lightning-fast wit I don't have, and have always envied. They also share a basic quality of being genuinely nice guys who try to do the right thing. You can see that with Harlan's insistence to keep working the programming schedule he'd been presented, because he's a professional and he didn't want to disappoint anyone. You can also see it with Gabe & Tycho, who couldn't participate fully due to scheduling problems, and so turned down all payment for their appearance at Foolscap this weekend. To the many partisans dismissing the works of either Harlan or Gabe and Tycho, my answer is that you should go look at what you're missing.

[6] WCFrancis 04:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I just finished reading a large portion of the shitstorm on Unca Harlan's Art Deco Dining Pavilion of trolls and people bashing and defending Harlan. <sarcasm>Another shining example of what the internet is doing for society</sarcasm>. `WCFrancis 05:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

For more see below. WCFrancis 04:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Things not to do Urgent

This includes a number of things that should inspire instant nominations for AfD.

  • Article on "List of Movies with important plot action/events in elevators or elevator shafts"
    • Die Hard
    • Terminator 2
    • Toy Story 2
    • Dark Star
  • List of Blues songs whose lyrics include the phrase "Woke up this morning".
List of Blues songs that don't include that phrase might be shorter.
  • Double-talk Generator (Star Trek)
Original Research
  • List of Lists on Wikipedia
Don't use wikipedia to make a point


[edit] Poopybutt

I deleted it; sorry about the delay. Lectonar 15:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Just had to vent. This stuff goes on forever. WCFrancis 15:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
That's quite alright; what do you think admins do think about this stuff? when you're on RC-patrol, you read something like that the whole time (admittedly, this was partly Dutch), not to speak of vandalism to your user-page, unnecessary and outright childish comments on your talk page...shall I continue? Happy editing. Lectonar 15:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Text of Ellison's Comments

The following was entered on the article on Harlan Ellison and soon removed. I put it on the Talk:Harlan Ellison page. Here it is again. WCFrancis 03:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This version was captured directly from Ellison Webderland.WCFrancis 04:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

HARLAN ELLISON

- Tuesday, December 6 2005 13:11:44

WIKIPEDIA PUSTULANT

Let me urge you to go to the link Mark O. has posted re Wikipedia, just previous to this. My fervent 2 cents (and with all this much-vaunted hossanah'ing of PCs, and how they'll make us a better species, how come the fuckin' things don't have a "cents" sign as did the cheesiest typewriter Back In The Day?), my two cents is entered YET AGAIN FOR THE ELEVENTH TIME, that the site, the idea, the concept, the execution, the content of the Wikipedia site is simply unadorned crap.

Let me stress thst. CRAP. Not just useless for reference if you give even the smallest shit about truth or accuracy or fairness or being courant, but DANGEROUS and HURTFUL CRAP that balms the egos of those whose idle hours compelled them to create this cesspool in the first place, in blind denial of the idiocy of the opening concept.

It is a stupid idea, deifying the urban myths and illogical personal twitches of anonymous know-nothings. It is the raising to the level of notice, the blathering and meanness of those who formerly had an adequate and appropriate soapbox on the corner, but who now have the aid and abettment of worldwide broadcasting. It is the enabling of half-witted and jejeune autodidacts who truly believe every paranoid conspiracy opinion they foam up in their brain-basin is worthy of dissemination, and is as "valuable" as real facts and Britannica-researched real information.

The Siegenthaler situation exactly parallels mine own, EVEN AFTER I played their silly little game and spoke to the several creators of the site personally, and then spent an hour or so revising and submitting an accurate (evenhanded, non-ax-honing) revision...which lasted for about an hour till the anonymous brigands formerly of Enemies of Ellison realized their long-posted scurrilous CRAP had been deleted...and they just punched in the previous CRAP all over again. And the Wizards of Wikipedia giggled, shrugged their shoulders and said, "Well, see, that's the idea of Wikipedia. Nothing is permanent."

NOTHING IS PERMANENT???!!!!!!???????

gEEZus bleedin' whatever, this flies in the face of every basic instinct of the human race. The Great Wall of China, the Tower of Babel, the Great Library of Alexandria, the World Trade Towers, the Pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, all of Shakespeare's and Faulkner's and Shirley Jackson's writings, the begetting of children ... TO LAST, TO BE PERMANENT (even in the face of the futility of "eternal" permanence)(to defy death and the eroding sands of time, to leave a mark, to have BEEN HERE), to create that which does not slip and slide and fall away beneath our feet. To be permanent, as best it can be so.

IMpermanence = chaos.

Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

Those who are obsessed with disseminating "Chinese Whispers," who enjoy "Playing Telephone," who batten on creating gossip and rumor and the kind of paralogical CRAP that is as real as the "little fuck" anecdote allegedly about me, that Phil Klass cobbled up from a creaky old vaudeville-cum-Joe Miller Jokebook shtick, decades ago...that still lives on...

Those pus-bags will revel in using CRAP SITES like Wikipedia, and the even more egregious ancillary-sites that reproduce the CRAP without checking, thus spreading obscurantism and illiteracy further and further...

Those schmucks will not go away. But YOU PEOPLE have some very laudable degree of common sense. So stop blathering about "we should do this" and "we should do that" and lamenting what a nasty business this is. Because short of finding each and every one of these people (and who the hell knows how many that might be, on a million different topics) and putting a Glock to their head, and festooning the wall behind them with strawberry gliomas, even RUMINATING about buying into this set-up is no more than annoying and aggravating.

So unless you can hack your way in, to destroy Wikipedia from the tap root up, give it a pass, I beg you...give it a rest!

In sympathy with John Siegenthaler's father,

Yr. pal, Harlan

(P.S.: You have my permission to disseminate this panegyric, not least to the mavens at Wikipedia. Let THEM roil for a while.)

Reposted by WCFrancis 04:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
When I really get fed up with the crap I may replace "Facts are stubborn" in my sig with "Harlan is right".
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Talk:Harlan Ellison

Hello again! Thank you for your apology and note; I appreciate your follow-up. No problem, and I also regret if I was curt in replying.

While it may be true that I sometimes have difficulty getting away from a keyboard :), I've also worked both at a public library and as a research assistant at university, so your comments were (unintentionally) particularly pointed. Besides: I've been known to throw off a flippant comment and to shake the tree now and then ... In any event, I will read the story. Thanks again, and take care! E Pluribus Anthony 04:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The exchange on the talk page follows, to put the above in context: ...

Agreed! That title reminds me of The Matrix, when Smith removes Neo's mouth on the spot, but he still 'screams' ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Read the story. They have this place called a library. If you really can't get away from the keyboard you can buy a book from Amazon.com. I don't recall what collection it's in, but do a little research. WCFrancis 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Case in point – your first sentence on its own would've been just fine. And your sarcasm and emphasis is necessary ... because? There are things called manners and respect. If you cannot comment rationally or civilly, don't. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony 04:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to apologize for the sarcasm, which was out of line. I also failed to research it before opening my mouth keyboard. The story is available on the Sci-Fi.com site, with permission, I'm sure. The link is available at the end of the article I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. I immediately thought of the story when I saw the scene you mentioned and thought that it might be deliberate homage. I do recommend the story highly. I am embarassed by my sarcasm and my failure to check facts. WCFrancis 04:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Class Action Lawsuit

For information on the possible Class Action Lawsuit against Wikipedia, don't look here.

As pointed out below, this appears to now be gone. Link redirects. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that I believe that I can support and defend anything that I have personally posted on Wikipedia.

WCFrancis 05:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


See also:

[edit] Times They Are a'Changin'

Today at logon, I noticed the login success page has something added to it:

Immediately after this:
You have successfully signed in to Wikipedia as "username goes here".
You see this:
If you have not already, please take the time to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

<sarcasm>Yeah, right. That should work. </sarcasm>.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Afd for Jan 15, 2006 (yesterday) and Jan 16, 2006, (today) both have over 150 articles nominated. I am not sure whether this is meaningful or not, and I have made not attempt to determine how many are hoaxes. This also does not reflect corrections of false information in other articles. Is that even trackable?
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If you attempt to edit without being logged in, this message appears: "You are not logged in. You are free to edit pages; be aware that your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history."

oooooh, that shoud keep the vandals under control...

NOT.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Facts are never subject to consensus.


[edit] Note

The "Class Action" site appears to have up and died... 68.39.174.238 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.
What part of "Please register and login before you leave me a note" was hard to understand??
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dropping by...

Hi,

I'm here to return greetings (on my way out the door for vacation, actually.) I note with sadness your discontent with Wikipedia, and infer from the Ellison letter its cause. The only mitigating thought I have to offer is this: Bear in mind that an article is improved the more it is seen; long-enduring flaws in articles typically only survive because the articles go unread. A silent lie buried deep in dusty text is a wrong, but a minimal one, thankfully. Beyond that, this place does have room for improvement. We need editors of your caliber to help make sure that happens.

As for Mr. Ellison, we Trekkies remember "City on the Edge of Forever," and his long-simmering argument with Gene. How any man could argue with Gene Roddenberry I don't understand -- I have a quasi-religious devotion to him. :) (Women, on the other hand, have many reasons to argue with him, by his own admission!) Anyway,...

We need you. I have adminship now, you know, and will happily chide any vandal you point out to me; Wikipedia would be a happier place if you were an admin with me! Best wishes, Xoloz 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, my dear friend:
Congratulations on adminship. May you use it with the responsibility that I would expect from one of your high standards.
In the hope that we can continue to consider each other friends, I would request that you read The City on the Edge of Forever - the Original Teleplay that Became the Classic Star Trek Episode ISBN 1-800-325-02-0. If you read only the screenplay, I hope you can see it as I do. My opinion is that it is highly superior to the aired version. If you worship Roddenberry, you may have trouble seeing that he was consistently distorting reality (as I put it politely when I mean "lying like a fucking rug"), while my friend Harlan was "telling it like it is" which HE has never failed to do. Read with an open mind, my dear Xoloz, and you may find your opinions altered. If not, I certainly hope our friendship can survive.

[edit] Sin Star

I deleted your Sin Star subpage, as previously deleted content. You've not done any work on it since January so it doesn't seem to be a work in process to fix the causes of deletion. If you intend to fix it up and try again let me know and I'll undelete it, but resotred deleted content in userspace is only acceptable where there is an active attempt to fix the problems. Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of personal sub-pages

Reference Sinstar. I thought that personal sub-pages were exactly that - personal.

There were no links to it from article pages - only links were from my talk. So why it was deleted is a mystery to me. What gain except a couple thousand bytes of storage? What is the point? Not that it was an important article, and I probably should have removed myself, but why didn't you get my response 'before deletion?

Incidentally, the article was stored like that since it was a fangirl written piece that resulted in an amazing discussion regarding deletion that ended up driving the writer away from Wikipedia. (My talk with her has also been saved in my talk archives.) She had done a thorough job but the controversy was regarding the nebulous issue of "notability", which had no decent guidance on definition other than consensus. The debate got unnecessarily acrimonious. The article was reasonably supportable and well written. Wikipedia lost a potential enthusiastic editor with clear writing ability over this and I felt it was a example of one of the weaknesses of wikipedia.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? Originally posted 08/14/2006 - check history if you question this.wcf Facts are stubborn.

Is there a reason you have not replied to the above?
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I have been away in the States for a week and haven't yet recovered from jet-lag, I caught up with some things before others.
User sub-pages are not personal any more than any other page on Wikipedia. Nobody owns them. Articles moved to user space after result of deletion debates can be kept for a while but in the end they have to be either fixed or removed, because Wikipedia is not a free web host. We allow users to sday something about themselves on their user page because although Wikipedia is not a social networking site there is a degree of social networking between editors and using user space to facilitate communication between them, within certain limits, seems to help to build the encyclopadia. I regret the departure of any Wikipedian (although my definition of Wikipeidan does not include those who come here to push a barrow), and AfD is not a great place some of the time, but in the end fanpages generally get deleted. It's not about notability, it's about verifiability from reliable secondary sources. Fanpieces are no different from novel interpretations of historical events in this respect: Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. If you want to fix up the article or need the text to take to your own website there are plenty of admins - including me - who will gladly facilitate that, but consensus deleted content is to be deleted, not moved to some place where it gets less scrutiny. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
One of my points was the material was verifiable, and was deleted as non-notable. I don't care about that article and you were right to delete it under the policy. If you would, you could also clear out some other pages which I have tagged for speedy under owner request. Thanks.____wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 05:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts." Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan, quoted in spite of grammar.

[edit] Accountability

Is there some reason you can not support accountability for editors on Wikipedia? I can see no reason to keep Wikipedia from being sued if you do not have a way to make sure editors are responsible for their entries. Attempts to avoid responsibilty for entries by claiming anyone can correct the entries are hopeless at best. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 04:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean; I do support accountability for editors.--Jimbo Wales 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I chose the wrong word. Perhaps it would be better to say "require" accountability. As long as people can edit anonymously there will be a problem. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Requiring identification before editing would not appear to solve any actual problems that we have. Anonymity is not especially problematic, and if you look at the deep irresponsibility in the mainstream media, you can see that removing anonymity has very little to do with accountability.--Jimbo Wales 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Arguing that "someone else does it" does not make it any more excusable. You used a distraction instead of an actual argument. --wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: a year later, and there is scandal regarding Wikipedia vandalism traced back to Fox News. Still in denial, Jimbo?
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 00:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Harlan

[edit] Pointless reference to Sexual Behavior in 1962

Following copied after entering my response 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC). Harlan's article refers to the incident as "...the single kinkiest sexual encounter I ever had."

Removed the following which had no place and no reason to be in an ENCYCLOPEDIA article and which could be taken as a personal attack:

Account of kinky sexual liaison in 1962
In 1978 Harlan Ellison recounted as if telling a factual story[1] how in 1962 he had ended a consensual sexual encounter, after tying his partner in the living-room of her parents' house so that she was naked and unable to move or release herself, by leaving her there to be discovered by her parents. The veracity of his own account cannot be determined; it resembles a common urban legend[2].

Also changed subtitle that may have been legally actionable and was undoubtedly a personal attack. It was put up 22 November 2006, reverted 28 November 2006, and has been there until now. Look for this abuse to return soon.

wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The US Federal government's definition of sexual assault includes "inappropriate touching" (see [7]) Ellison's sexual assault on Willis at the Hugo Awards is thoroughly documented to an unusual extent for any encyclopedia: to use correct terminology for an event that is completely verifiable is certainly not actionable.
The first of the 'Three Most Important Things' anecdote was retitled by an anon editor who objected to having Ellison's self-described behavior referred to as 'sexual assault'. I put it back in because it is sourced as well as any of the other controversies and is certainly notable: Ellison not only published the anecdote he told, but is reported to have recounted it several times at conventions. Yonmei 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Provided it is from a reliable sourced (it is) and we make it clear it's veracity is uncertain (we do) there are only two other issues. Is it sufficiently noteable (appears to be but can't say for sure) and is it documented as controversial (no clear info on this)? The fact that you and I may think it is controversial is irrelevant if it isn't documented as controversial. Given it's noteability, there might be merit to include it somewhere else if it isn't documented as controversial but not in the controversies section Nil Einne 12:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Will try to find documentation of controversy: what controversy I'm aware of occurred exclusively in fandom, which tends not to be documented up to Wikipedia standards. Yonmei 18:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted portion had nothing to do with Connie Willis incident. It was the quoted section from his essay. Pointless, with a title that amounts to a personal attack. It came back. It has been removed again. Please do not turn this into an edit war, but consider why you feel the need to hate Mr. Ellison and to continual find ways to attack him in an encyclopedia.wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please remember: assume good faith. Accusations that wiki editors include information in biographies based on personal animosity towards the subject, is hardly an assumption of good faith. This anecdote is directly sourced to Ellison: it may or may not to be true, but not only did he repeat it at several conventions, he also published it under his own name as something he had done. It is therefore quite literally a self-incriminating account of a sexual assault Ellison carried out, or said he did, in 1962. The argument has been made that this is "not controversial", and therefore ought to be under a different section: I cannot, however, see any good reason to remove it altogether: though as you will see other anecdotes that are not sourced have been removed. Yonmei 02:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I can still see no reason that this incident should even be in an "encyclopedia", even a self-labeled one. Use of the inflammatory label "sexual assault" appears to meet standard of personal attack, and if it cannot be supported in its legal meaning, it is actionable.
I also do not see why that particular terminology is so important when there are other terms that would not look like personal attack could easily be substituted. The insistance on the use of the term assult is my reason for not being able to assume good faith. (Aside: "assume good faith" is a principle to allow discussion regarding editorial choices, not to allow anyone to put anything in just because they are acting in "good faith".)
I still contend that, regardless of terminology, inclusion is pointless and creates an interruption to the flow of the article, which is already choppy and in need of a true editor.
Note also that I predicted this edit skirmish would happen. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a request from User: Vaoverland

Hi! I have been working on Wikipedia: WikiProject Virginia and several other projects with User: No1lakersfan most of this past year. He is now a high school senior hoping to gain admittance to one of Virginia's public university for the Fall 2007 semester. Following advice, he has done maintenance and reference adding work, as well spending time on articles. He is a good collaborator and I believe he would enhance our efforts with WP as an administrator and use the additional tools and powers wisely. Since you know me from our past communications, I wanted to request that you consider entering a vote, hopefully in support, if you agree with my judgment and recommendation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 2.

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 10:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

[edit] About your poetry.com comment

I think I know what you were refering to in your comment. If I could find the source of it, would you be interested to adding what you said to the main page? Bookbat_98 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cruelty of Poetry.Com

If I understand, Bookbat is referring to the following from the Talk page:

The International Library of Poetry is a scam very close to the edge of the law. They may have edged over the line in some cases. Not quite a vanity publisher, they do not ask for money to publish a poem (at least not in the first letter) but charge an exorbitant price ($50) for shoddy copies of compilations of submitted poems. They do, however, charge to include a small blurb about the poem and/or the victim - I mean, Poet. There follows an invitation to a conference (cost around $600 per person, not including food & lodging) to read your poem and accept your award (which I suspect you will never see if you don't go.)

It is apparently impossible to get a rejection. Not only was my deliberately bad poem Storms accepted as a semi-finalist, I have found examples on the internet of absolutely ridiculous poems, including complete gibberish, that also received this high award. An entire fourth grade class wrote and submitted poems; all were accepted. Dave Barry printed his hilariously bad-but accepted poem in his column.

While I was researching this, I did not keep info on sources. That's why this is on Talk page.

  • wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 06:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
To respond to Bookbat, yes, I have no problem with the supportable part being added to the main page. See my note in italics at the end of my comments.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lisa De Leeuw Images

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:LisaDL01.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LisaDL01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 13:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
This is a screenshot of Lisa De Leeuw uploaded to provide a g-rated portrait for the article about her. If this is unacceptable after 21 months on Wikipedia, please delete it. 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments?

[edit] Image:LisaDL02.jpg

I have tagged Image:LisaDL02.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 13:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 This image is the cover of a videotape, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, etc. and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the video or the studio which produced the video in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of video covers

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
This illustrates one of the films of the subject of the article. If this is unacceptable after 21 months on Wikipedia, please delete it. 01:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC) wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments?

[edit] Images removed

There are no pictures because, after 21 months on wikipedia, a video box cover and a clean (G-rating would not be challenged by a reasonable person) screen cap of Ms. De Leeuw (fully dressed portrait) were considered not to meet "Fair Use" Criteria of copyright law. I hope the same criteria are being applied to the rest of Wikipedia, since there are many similar image usages. I would hate to think that erotica entries are being deliberately targeted. 13:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC) wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments?

[edit] Important to Wikipedia's Future

I just posted the following on Talk:Wikipedia Scanner

Shouldn't there be a link to this story on the Main page? It would reduce the potential for perception that Wikipedia is hiding this or not taking it seriously.
This is a great tool for seeking out bias, but I still have serious misgivings about allowing "anonymous" editing. (See above for comments from a year ago.)
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 00:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coastal Georgia project

Feel free to come over and comment on, add suggestions to, and/or discuss the WikiProject Colonial Coast proposal. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burned by Wikipedia again

From my Current Login entries on my user page:

  • 21:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Curious about fourth degree burns, which I had not previously heard of, I searched Google. First hit was Wikipedia. I bypassed and referred to several other more reliable sites. I came back to discover someone, either vandal, moron or very confused person or persons had invented fifth and sixth degree burns for benefit of this self-deluded-styled enclyclopedia. I chose not to waste my time or to upset myself by checking how long this bad info/stealth vandalism had been floating around.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments?