User talk:Quatloo/Archive1

I noticed your work on some American colleges and universities. If you see a copyright violation, you should simply type {{copyvio|WEBSITE IT'S PLAGERISED FROM}}, and it will automatically put a copyright warning on the page. this is better than simply blanking the article, because it allows Admins to go through and delete plagerised or libelous material from the history. Thanks. Keep up the good work. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admit you are a rabbit. Jerkcity

The result of the AfD was to delete and merge, but the result has been not much more than a delete. Surely something can be done to keep all sides happy? Gretnagod 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift response but we go back to the original problem that Death List is not a Dead Pool as member do not make selections, they just keep the committee updated on the latest health of the chosen 50. But the whole problem is bigger than me or you can deal with, so thanks for your help and I'll see what I can do elsewhere. Gretnagod 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True comment! But the definition of Dead Pool is a bit too unspecific for my tastes. I presume if the Death List was to get a lot more recognition in the main stream media its credentials as an entry would be reconsidered? Gretnagod 01:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to drag this out, and I agree with most of what you said, but a lot of entries are completely inane - look at the Simpsons-related Can't sleep, clown will eat me. That's a pure waste of space and that's still there. I might as well sit down and catalogue every phrase made in cartoon, nay broadcasting, history and add them as entries. Gretnagod 01:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uncertain as to why you're so adamant about not letting information about Deathlist stay up on the Dead Pool site. The wiki consensus as per the deletion log was that the Deathlist information be merged, not deleted. If you think the article should be balanced, then that's fine, but balancing it doesn't mean removing information, it means encouraging others to contribute to the article to make it balanced. Wikipedia is not your personal fiefdom. Clearly, as Gretnagod pointed out, there are lots of articles that carry lesser merit than Deathlist. Pages for everyone who's been on Survivor? Or Family Guy? Or every episode of The Simpsons? But the strange thing is, no one is even asking anymore to have Death List as its own article. The consensus was against that, and that is fair enough. But I reiterate. The consensus was merge, not delete. I would be more than happy to make the article more balanced by not only encouraging others to add information about the other pools, but by adding some myself. Your opinion is valid and respected. So is, however, the one of every other serious contribution to Wikipedia. Let's work at making the Dead Pool article an excellent article instead of just deleting the efforts of other members. Canadian Paul 03:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the votes for deletion page had deemed it significant enough not to delete, I shall reiterate a few points. First of all, the first list came out in 1987. Not only was that before the longest running online Dead Pool (the Derby Dead Pool [1]), which began in 1996, but it also came out one year before the Clint Eastwood movie. Check out the "history of deadpools" section on the Derby Dead Pool website. Yet you'll notice that Deathlist.net is not present on that history. That's because Deathlist.net is not a Dead Pool. Deathlist is a unique concept and community based project that, while admittedly is not totally seperate from the idea of Dead Pools, is different enough to mark its significance. Consensus has forced those who support it as its own article to acquiese our right to a seperate page, but the recommendation was still to merge, which meant that the information should have been kept mostly intact. Furthermore, you'll note that the page didn't even exist until it appeared in a major article in Britain's The Sun.

Your view on significance is a bit skewed I think. Why should numbers be the be all and end all? Should we do a seperate page for every episode of every show that has more than X amount of viewers? I don't think it's necessary, because Wikipedia is an informational source, not a fanclub for TV shows. What about Ertugrul Osman V? Not many people know about him. He hasn't done much. But by virtue of his status as the patriarch of the Ottoman Dynasty, he is significant and worthy of his own article. But chances are, only people who study Middle Eastern history will have heard of him. I'm sure that there are similar articles in the field(s) that you specialize in.

The consensus was merge, not delete. If you wish to change the consensus, I'm not the person to be arguing to. There's a giant community willing to host the issue on Wikipedia, I encourage you to bring your fight there. Until then, please cease in your attempts to prevent the proper merger. Canadian Paul 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Happy editing. —Viriditas | Talk 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cat addition (I'd never seen it). And the nick is great. ... aa:talk 05:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Wick Eyre. The person is Rick Eyre. It had been named that way deliberately to mock Eyre (I happen to know the person who created the article). Tintin (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have marked this article as copyvio; would you please remove copyrighted text, or revert the article to a copyvio-free revision? The web source you give doesn't seem to match the article, but you mention some print source, which I don't have access to. Conscious 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed two paragraphs from the article. Conscious 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with you that there is a copyright issue here. The Click website was cited.--Samiharris 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no copyright violation was intended, and if so I apologize. I did begin a temp article. Are you an administrator and can you resolve this by examining the temp article?--Samiharris 14:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I certainly take no umbrage and appreciate your showing me the ropes on this, as I am a new user to this encyclopedia and unfamiliar with the protocol. I do hope that I can be of service in economic and finance areas.--Samiharris 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the attention to this. I have replied to you here[2] , I am not being stupidly dogged about this, I do sincerely think there is a significant (BLP) problem here. I think it is more subtle than the usual problem because of the nature of the entry, and needs just a bit more looking at, but nonetheless clearly evident when looked at so. Thanks. Richardmalter 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been able to dig up a cite? I'm going through everything I can, but can find nothing. --Charlene 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why you feel my edit summary on the Essjay controversy was disingenuous. Despite the fact that a full URL was used, those were links to Wikipedia userspace, which I have seen several administrators state is not acceptable in articles. If you prefer, we can discuss this on the userpage of the article. Risker 03:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that bio is on IMDb, because when I wrote it, I put it there. It is also on Sid's official site, which I co-administrate, and which has a license for use here posted on it. Please research the information on a page before calling it "plagiarism". Thank you.Spirot 03:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tone must be fine, or Wiki would not have rated it a B class when I submitted it for a rating. Admin "Glen S" has helped me repeatedly get it NPOV and Wiki has rated it well. I would appreciate no further tinkering with a page that was just fine 24 hours ago.Spirot 03:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The link works just fine, and clearly states that the bio is licensed to this site. Why not check these things before accusing someone of plagiarism?? You may wish to do so in the future.Spirot 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TRY USING THE UPDATED LINK, AND IT WILL WORK...Spirot 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page you opened about the bio and see...AGAIN. How many times do I have to post the same link???Spirot 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are trying to delete a category of Jewish athletes again. This time, figure skaters. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_14#Category:Jewish_figure_skaters . I pointed out to the originator of the attempt that we had addressed this general issue already with Jewish fencers, where the attempt failed (due in part to your help). Still, they insist on trying to delete this category. Any help by your weighing in on the issue would be appreciated. I will do so as well once I have a chance to write something up. Thanks again. --Epeefleche 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected direct link: [3] Earlier I informed you of this request for arbitration, initially filed by User talk:Notmyrealname, since you are an "interested party" who contributed comments in that user's earlier BLP Noticeboard dispute pertaining to matters discussed in Talk:Lewis Libby (see archived talk pages) about these issues pertaining to Libby's "ethnicity" and his identification as "Jewish" and the category "Jewish American lawyers" in Talk:Lewis Libby (archived talk pages); I had modified the heading to focus on the articles in dispute as opposed to on a contributor and explained that there but that was reverted by an administrator. Thank you for having gone to the link and confirmed that you are aware of this request. --NYScholar 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [updated: --NYScholar 20:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the category tag, commenting: "Does not meet Wikipedia's own definition of what a Hoax is". But see: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." In this case the "something false" was Essjay's credentials. I'll note that Google gets 15,300 hits for Essjay+hoax. Example: "Wikipedia's Wales Reverses Decision on Problem Admin": "Wikipedia is not built on credentials. That Essjay occasionally pointed to his hoax bio when editing articles may have influenced other editors, but did not gain him special privileges." So this is hardly an anomalous usage of "hoax". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By selectively quoting only a small snippet from the hoax page to make your argument, you left out the further elaborations of what distinguish a hoax from a fraud. The Essjay controversy is a fraud, not a hoax. The underlying motives are inconsistent with a hoax. By your reasoning all frauds are hoaxes, and that is absurd. Quatloo 09:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Quatloo, what distinguishes fraud is that it is done for financial gain. When Essjay was hired for Wikia, he told them the credentials had been false; the earlier deception of his fellow Wikipedians and then of the New Yorker had no monetary aspect. This was a hoax and not a fraud. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wiktionary's fraud and hoax. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, again you are selectively misusing definitions. Fraud is done for gain, and it need not be financial gain. The very definition you point to says that. Essjay used his fraud to increase his power and position, and to further his arguments. He did not use it for activities traditionally associated with hoaxes. From Hoax, "a hoax is often perpetrated as a practical joke, to cause embarrassment, or to provoke social change by making people aware of something." There is nothing remotely hoax-like about the Essjay scandal. It is a case of fraudulent use of credentials. He had no purpose other than that. Quatloo 06:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Often" suggests a frequent but not a necessary or defining motive, otherwise the word would have to be "always". The fact is that a hoax can also have mercenary motives, as did the hoaxes perpetrated by Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Lee Siegel, Binjamin Wilkomirski, Laura Grabowski, Gerd Heidemann (of the Hitler Diaries), and Clifford Irving's fake Howard Hughes autobiography. Hoaxes can also be frauds. Put another way, the absence of financial motive is not a defining feature of hoaxes. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This again has you arguing the absurdity that all frauds are hoaxes. This is a case of simple credential falsification. There has to be a larger picture for it to be a hoax. That larger picture is lacking. Quatloo 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite where "There has to be a larger picture for it to be a hoax." -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...the absurdity that all frauds are hoaxes." Well, look at Wiktionary's fraud (1): An act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved, and/or unlawful gain, esp. financial gain. Wiktionary's hoax: Anything deliberately intended to deceive or trick. Now how exactly is it "absurd" to observe that the set "fraud" is a subset within the set "hoax"? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST

I put the bonk in the honkity blonk plonk bluh Jerkcity 06:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatloo, we have been though this, and an admin even warned you to knock it off. The bio is licensed, and the link to the license is posted. TWO admins pointed that out to you the last time you tried this nonsense. Now STOP. Spirot 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing happened. I engaged only in civil discussion and was not issued any "warnings." My beef has always been with the poor quality of the article and the fact that it is a non-encyclopaedic hagiography. The article is poor because it came from the Official Website. Quatloo 01:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it match the one on the website exactly? No. Does it match the one on IMDB exactly? No. Know why? Because, WITH THE HELP OF A WIKI ADMINISTRATOR, I edited it to be NPOV, and then Wiki gave it a class B rating. Obviously, you and Wiki do not share the same opinion of that page, as you have been told. Two admins now have reviewed this claim and dismissed it. Do you honestly need a third time??? Spirot 01:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have removed the notability tag from Lee Marshall (footballer). Marshall has played in the Premier League, as well as being capped for England at Under-21 level. It's a fair point that there weren't any references, so I have added three, with more to follow. Hope this is sufficient for now, if not please let me know what else is required. Thanks. --Jameboy 12:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out the following, according to your statement given in this arbcom issue:

"One of the other persons giving evidence here said that he could not find the Tulsa Jewish Review reference. I had found it earlier and put it on the BLP noticeboard, but here it is again [70]. I should stress that this is not merely an online publication, but has been in print for 70+ years. There can be absolutely no question that this is a reliable, third-party source. Discussion any other source which is less reliable (instead of this source) is a red herring intended to evade this issue."

Please recognize that Lyndon LaRuche has been "participating" in politics since the 1970s, which makes his activity span at least 30 years; yet no one would ever consider him credible or notable. My point is: longevity does not induce reliability.--RWilliamKing 14:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that collectively corroborate the authenticity of this particular source? How well is it respected in the community? What are it's criticisms? Does it have an agenda? When referring to primary sources, ultimately these things must be questioned and referenced; if not for their integrity then for their reliability. I think you and I, as amateur encyclopedians, would both agree that ultimately the value of the source is everything, all things considered.--RWilliamKing 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I mean that it's not enough to just say that a source is notable or reliable, or to recommend someone to "do it theirselves". My hope is that you would provide references that prove that it is, given that you are the purveyor of the source's accuracy. If you cannot provide such, then by every logical right, the source is in question until proven otherwise. To create a convincing and compelling argument, these facts must be provided by individuals who wish to back up their sources. That, unfortunately, is the encyclopedic way. --RWilliamKing 14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]