User talk:Davidbspalding/Archive/2007-Jan

Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service

Thought you might want to know about this it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphoto^talk 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.... I'll take a look, thanks. — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs

You mentioned that this project is a duplication of efforts. If you could provide links to the duplication you've found, perhaps we can work toward addressing this concern. Thanks, Rklawton 14:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well call me "Waffle" and smother me in maple syrup, I added myself again. The comment "... has the same goals as ... but is better organized" had me thinking, "redundancy." But I see how the idea is shaping up as a geo-spatial listing of available volunteers, and therefore could be beneficial. I'm back in. Now we need a userbox. ;) — David Spalding ^Talk/_Contribs 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

Boy, that's an old comment ... Curse of the Bambino has settled down a lot since the Red Sox won. - DavidWBrooks 15:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Touchstone Pictures edit via CorHomo

Thanks to for alerting me to the impact of my edit on Touchstone Pictures. I was 'experimenting' with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation/fixer and did change a number of generic links to the Hyperion dab page after having cleaned up that page. It seemed to work well for all to but the one the you reverted. So in this test my Unofortuantely I have no idea how my attempt to change Hyperion link with this tool resulted in pasting a completely different text. So the test has NOT worked . I'll now try it once more with the remaining Hyperion links while closely monitoring the results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 10:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC). Tikiwont 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a software tester, so I'd call that a successful test as it might've found a bug, or at least shown you a liability in the tool. Keep using it, and if you find bugs let the developer know. :-) — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs

Jennifer Ann's Group - response to your CSD

• Attacking a fellow editor based on assumptions about motive is against policy. (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA).
• Recognition by Texas Psychological Foundation is notable and not subjective.
• Media coverage in print and TV is notable and not subjective.
• Page contains history of organization as well as efforts undertaken by organization and is not a "blatant" promotional page. "Blatant" is defined by [dictionary.com] as:

1. brazenly obvious; flagrant 2. offensively noisy or loud; clamorous 3. tastelessly conspicuous

Drew30319 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Response and egress

I wasn't aware that I was attacking you, but since you put this on my page, let's be clear:

• If you are Drew Crecente, you created the group after the tragic death of your daughter. I applaud you for your dedication.
• You created a bio page about your daughter on WP which was nominated for deletion and subsequently userfied and deleted.
• You created the page under discussion about your non-profit organization..
• Someone else nominated this page for CSD, not I. I looked it up, looked into the history, your edit history, and made some conclusions. Other editors might draw different conclusions. I readily admit to my potential for fallibility.
• The page references only one news article, which failed to work for me -- at the time. I researched the DNS servers of the newspaper site and queried the site, it was error 500, no rsponse. I see it's working now, hurrah.

I stand by my concern about editorial bias. Let's look at those policies you quoted. They contain the following:

• "Disagreements about content ... are not personal attacks." _WP:NPA
• "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."_WP:NPA

I want to quote one or two more myself:

• "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates." (emphasis added) _WP:COI
• "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, ... or organization. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say...."(emphasis added) _WP:COI
• "Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." (emphasis added) _WP:COI

Again, an editor having a comment on a page nominated for deletion is NOT an attack on YOU, and if you insist that it is, then I'd say that a lack of objectivity has been firmly established. Rereading the discussion here, I think it was clear that a a conflict concern was raised and identified. My suggestion: Take a step back, breathe deeply, and ask a third party editor to help. My suggestion: let some other people work on the page for a while. I'm backing off your page so that the community can do what it does best. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Further interesting observations

Comment: Just for shits and grins, I did a little reading on Drew's page. Hrm. He left an unsigned comment on Robert West's page:

Because I was attempting to add what I consider to be relevant material to the article on Daniel Brandt which ran contrary to Robert A West's opinion, he is now attempting to delete a valid article on Jennifer Ann Crecente.

What other instances of his petulant behavior can other user's share with the community?

— Drew

So Robert left a comment on Drew's page, including:

The strength of your reaction suggests an emotional connection to Jennifer. If that is the case, I am sorry for your loss, but understand that this is a reason that Wikipedia strongly suggests not writing articles about people you know. I routinely propose very similar articles for deletion, and vote "delete" when others nominate them. The procedure is hardly capricious -- lots of people will look at the nomination before a decision is made, and deletion is far from automatic.

In any case, attacking a fellow editor based on assumptions about motive is against policy. (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA). I understand that I hit a nerve with the prod, so I don't believe you really meant to do anything wrong, but Wikipedia is a bit rough-and-tumble at times, and we need to avoid taking things personally if this whole thing is to work.

Good night, and happy editing.

— Robert A. West

Then, when Robert posted a "Wikipedia is not a memorial" comment on the AfD page, Drew answered:

Robert A. West appears to have had his feathers ruffled. Because I deigned to question his continued removal of what I considered to be relevant information regarding the Daniel Brandt article he has decided to attempt to delete an article of mine.

— Drew30319

I sense a pattern here. I respect the grief that family members feel over a tragic death -- I've had death in my life lately, too -- but claiming persecution just because others have a perspective, just isn't compelling. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs

Response to "Further Observations"

I'm glad that you've raised this issue as it gives me the opportunity to share my Wikipedia experience.

My initial foray into "Wiki" was my creation of a page for [Jennifer Ann Crecente], my high school daughter that was murdered on February 15, 2006. Through networking on MySpace, I have started communicating with many abuse and domestic violence organizations. Through these associations I noted that many other murder victims had Wikipedia articles. I thought that as precedent had already been set it would be appropriate to create one for Jennifer as well, especially as a Grant was created in her name by the TX Psych. Foundation; her murder had received heavy media coverage; a non-profit group was created in her name; and it was the first murder of the year in Austin.

It took me some time to figure out how to create the article. I read carefully on proper citing of my sources and had 10+ newspaper and video links. Once the article was created it sat there with no responses or modifications from anybody for over a month.

Then I made the mistake of adding something to another article. There was discussion on Slashdot about [Daniel Brandt]. Having erroneous beliefs about what information "belongs" on Wikipedia, I added some information from the Slashdot article and ensuing discussion.

[User:Robert A West] disagreed with me and exchanged comments on the appropriateness of my contribution to the article. He felt that Slashdot articles weren't worthy of inclusion and I felt otherwise as I was quoting the subject of the article, Daniel Brandt himself. The next day he marked the article on my daughter for "speedy deletion."

Of course I had no idea what this meant. It took me some time to delve into the Wikipedia arcania and lists of TLAs to understand what was going on.

As most rational people would, I took this as an attack based on our disagreement from the previous day. He responded with the quote regarding personal attacks that I now use anytime anybody questions my comments. It's a wonderful couple of TLAs and one day I hope to use them on somebody that understands less about what they mean than I do.

My "unsigned comment" was unsigned out of ignorance. I now know about the four tildes and always use them but as I'm sure you're aware this is not innate knowledge (nor is it even reasonably conventional).

I created the organization's article soon after I read the criteria for articles about a person being "notable." I felt that the organization would much more easily pass whatever "test" is required for inclusion. Once "Jennifer's Law" (or whatever name it gets in the Texas legislature) is passed then the article on my daughter could be re-instated. In the interim the article on the organization would suffice.

So - what you see as a "pattern" is actually the way that I interact with people. If I believe that somebody is being spiteful, obtuse or just wrong, I say as much. I had no prior knowledge as to the unique "culture" that has evolved on Wikipedia. It seems to me, as a new contributor, to be overly bureaucratic and "clubby" and I made the mistake of speaking my mind rather than using the proper tone (and requisite TLAs). I speak plainly and directly and now realize that my language and style are not a good fit with the Wikipedia culture.

I'm sorry for the loss(es) that you've had lately. I have had them as well. But when my 90 year old grandmother died of a heart attack in November and then my 70 year old uncle died the following day it just didn't have the same impact as when my only child was murdered. Of course I am sure that you aren't implying that your loss is the same as mine; all grief is unique.

It's not clear why you mention our respective losses just before stating "but claiming persecution just because others have a perspective, just isn't compelling." I don't see these as related issues.

But to address your point, to me it's acceptable to claim persecution if you are genuinely questioning others' motives. I appreciate perspectives that are different from mine but do not believe that it is a coincidence that my over-a-month-old article should be marked for speedy deletion the day after I crossed paths with this other person.

If it looks like a duck ...

Drew30319 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

DC animated characters

Please see this. It's cfd result [[1]]Brian Boru is awesome 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that it was going away; thanks for the clarification. Nolo contendere. — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Fallout (Heroes)

I reworded your contribution about "Sound of Thunder." Unless you can cite a source indicating that the Heroes writers were intentionally referencing Bradbury's story, the article can't say that they were. So, I changed it so that it just notes what Bradbury's story is about, without claiming that the writers were referring to it. Primogen 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being overcautious. Bradbury's story is well-known, was already linked to from the article (in the synopsis). "Dinosaur," "step on a bug," "change the future," ... pretty much add up to "A Sound of Thunder." The alternative you propose, is that the authors DON'T know about it ... they'd have to be rather clueless. Still your rewording isn't objectionable. Please don't replace "katana" with "sword," as it really is a katana he was carrying in the subway scene with Peter. Anyone not knowing what a katana is can just ... click ... the ... link. ;) — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 01:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Monolith sending a signal

Hi again David:

I still think there's a problem with saying in the synopsis "They gather around it for a group photo, but are interrupted when an earsplitting, continuous high-pitched tone is picked up by their radio receivers, emitted by the monolith as the sun shines down on it.

You wrote: "(→Synopsis - restoring the "high pitched tone" coming from monolith; several astronauts turn to the object as if it's the source, and Floyd's recorded briefing says that it sent the transmission)"

Yes, it sort of looks like one or two of the men turn toward the Monolith, but for a viewer of the film to decide that signifies that the Monolith is the source of the signal is very speculative. (Hell, when I first saw the movie at age ten, I was utterly convinced the Monolith was angered that the humans dared to take a picture of it, and so it was punishing them with a deafening noise!). Even your own words reveal the speculation -- "as if it's the source".

Also, although the Monolith is revealed as the source much later in the film, it seems wrong to make such a forward reference to that revelation at this point in the synopsis. We certainly wouldn't say at the moment Bowman is introduced "The leader of the Discovery crew and soon-to-be-Starchild."

Last, saying "emitted by the monolith as the sun shines down on it" implies a cause and effect which is far from clear in the movie. In fact, since the Sun is shown directly overhead, if sunshine is in fact the trigger for the Monolith's signal then it should've started shrieking much sooner. (Actually, upon re-reviewing the scene, the whole Sun / Earth / Moon positioning and alignment is very bogus. As the astronauts are coming down the ramp, we see them from behind, and see the Earth beyond the pit, a bit above the horizon, with its right hemisphere illuminated. This means the Sun has to be roughly a bit above the horizon as well. A minute or so later the Earth and the Sun are both almost directly overhead as we look up the surface of the Monolith. How'd they get up there so fast?!?)

Regards, Sailorlula 12:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

<previous response deleted>I think the synopis is accurate as it stands. I'm not speculating, I'm watching the movie. Also, this is a SYNOPSIS, and so does not need to have linear accountability like a screenplay. Relax, a founding pillar of this place is that everything is editable, and this passage will probably be edited again someday. We don't "own" this page, only visit it. ;) — David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs

Postscript: I found some interesting MOS guidance here...

Eh heh, Your Comment...

Please, share more of your wisdom with me oh strange one :P.....by the way hope you enjoy the filmmaking box ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 05:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, wisdom? Me? Insert coin to continue play (9 - 8 - 7 - 6 ...). Ask Dr. Know and he shall try. Click my e-mail link. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

(help) MergeTo and MergeFrom templates

Try as I may, the template:mergeto and template:mergefrom templates are creating red-links for the source and target page. (Yes, the mergefrom is on the target, and mergeto on the source. THAT much I can figure out.) The pages I've proposed merging are WP:CHILL (target) and WP:TIND (source). WTF? I've tried every variation of what the Usage guides specify. What could be missing? TIA David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When you're putting the templates in the wikipediaspace, there's no need for the Wikipedia: prefix. The templates were just built that way. So you would just need to put "The World Will Not End Tomorrow" and "There is no deadline" on the pages. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Very odd. But someone fixed it on WP:CHILL so I can see. A good day ... I learned something. Thanks! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Merge

Hi David, to be honest I think they can stand alone, delighted though I would be to combine efforts with something conceived by JzG. While they express broadly similar sentiments, the tone of TIND is more technical, while CHILL is more light-hearted. Of course, if discussion clearly demonstrates a consensus for the merge I'd be happy to see it happen, but if this is not really a hot issue I think linking at the bottom of each essay would more appropriate. Cheers, Deizio talk 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to be cute (though I am showing my newbie chops with my template problem), but both essays seem to counsel that WP does not have to be fast, and up to the minute, and ... well in a hurry. Yours came first, the second just seems to be the same idea with different words. The word plagiarism popped in my head. I dunno, maybe if I can make the template on WP:TIND point to WP:CHILL's talk page consensus will show me wrong, or show us that WP:DGAF is alive and well. It's Monday, the week is young. ,:) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

JzG is one of my (and many editors, I have no doubt) all-time favourite Wikipedians and honoured as I would be to be plagiarised by him I think it's a coincidental case of two editors who felt the need to write a short essay about their feelings. Of course neither of us own our respective creations but I still like the idea of allowing essays to stand alone. Essays to me in this respect are quite different to articles, we're not talking about something as clear cut as merging "Light sabre" with "Light sabre handle". JzG has said he's fine either way, but personally I still feel they should remain separate. I've been heartened to see CHILL referenced in a good number of debates and feel that the integrity of pages where editors have done so would be damaged slightly if the page pointed to something written in a different tone to the original page. I just can't find a compelling reason why they should be merged, even though they could be merged. Nice one, Deizio talk 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I get it. Essays are not like articles ... I think I've made a mistake. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

No worries, and let me know if you ever put out an essay of your own, it's the Wiki equivalent of therapy. Just so many topics, so little time... ;) So you won't mind if I remove the merge tags? Cheers, Deizio talk 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of removing them, but thought I'd let someone else ... yes, please, feel free to. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT: Aw shucks, and I was going to add somewhere Wikipedia is not ... therapy since I've seen a few editors use it like they're working out personal issues. ;) :D David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Welcome to the Films WikiProject!

Welcome!

File:Transparent film reel and film.png

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for November has been published. December's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

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

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Cbrown1023 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Never mind that the "vandal" removed his/her own edits. 204.52.215.107 21:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're user:Rickyrab as your IP user page claims, or just someone using his computer, discuss using sandboxes in your household. Policies and Guidelines aren't the best place to put things like fuckingly and wanking. You might also consider the ramifications of using a sock puppet. Just a suggestion, of course. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Nope, it's not me. There are quite a few people in this company. Block the IP if you have to, I have no basis to complain. Gazpacho

Dude, no one was ACCUSING YOU of spam. Just that IP. You made an unsigned comment on the page, I tagged it with {{unsigned}}, and that's all. Blanking user comments/warning (like MINE) is vandalism; don't do that, okay? End of line. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 01:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply of Suggestion

Dear David, I found your formula useful. Can you read my latest edit of my bio and see what you think of it?

Sincerely,

Raven —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etta85 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Understanding the Article

Dear David, I read the recommendation and the rules for the article but maybe you could edit or tell me what is off in the article.

Raven —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Etta85 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but I can read those guidelines for you but I can't understand them for you. I can't write or edit your 2 line vanity bio to bring it up to notability standards because I'm not familiar with you. Now, if you want to hire me for $250 a day to fly out and interview you and research you.... -- Look, WP is not a place where you can post vanity bios on yourself. I only see two of your poems on that one web site, that does not make you a notable person to the wide audience of the WP. Keep practicing your art, someday some recognition will be deservedly yours. But, I think, not today. BTW, YOU NEED TO SIGN YOUR COMMENTS. And yes I'm a writer David, I was replying to your thread and just wanted help not a lecture. - Etta85David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat this here, I posted it to your talk page before, obviously you aren't doing your studying if you're asking me to grade your homework prematurely.

... And when you have several notable, third-party references (news clippings, web reviews, audience blog mentions), then your article may pass the [[WP:BIO]] criteria. Please review =>'' [[WP:AUTO|Autobiographies]], [[WP:COI|Conflict of interest]], [[WP:NOT|What WP is not]].''

— Davidbspalding

Nanking film 2007

Hello, just a heads up about the above article. You used the fact that another similar article had been on Wikipedia longer as a criteria for speedy delete. That's not a valid WP:CSD, but your later addition of the copyvio claim was, and I have deleted the article. In the future, please use care in choosing which criteria will be used to delete an article. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I wasn't sure which took precedence. So many templates to choose from for CSD,.... I appreciate the tip, every day I learn something is a Good Day. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 17:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For the barnstar! Great to wake up to an award.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How Stuff Works

I yanked it because of a spamming run by User:Alyssapvr yesterday. Today I came across the template, added May 22, 2006 and used, apparently only twice, at Bluetooth and at Power steering, both of which I removed, precisely because people tend to assume that the existence of a template means that the thing can be used just about anywhere. Furthermore, I have yet to find a Wikipedia article where HSW provides information much beyond what our article already contains. Remember, Wikipedia's External links guidelines basically call for linking to sites only if the information on the site doesn't belong in the article because it is too detailed for an encyclopedia article. That certainly does not seem to be the case with most HSW articles, though I will grant you that they are generally well written. I would urge you to compare their Bluetooth article to ours, and if there is anything missing from ours, simply add it in (rewritten, of course), then use HSW as a source. My guess is that you won't find much if anything to add. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good tip, I think I'll also look at other articles that link to the Template:HSW template. And I see how User:Alyssapvr did a spamming run for that site (WTH, Thanksgiving recipes for th eThanksgiving page?!). But today's link is the only activity by that IP so I can't say it's more of the same. Appreciate the info, I'll look further a bit.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the use of HSW for Kwanzaa, Christmas and Hanukkah were pretty special! Figured they'd get a seasonal traffic blip from those links? Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well spank me crimson and call my butt Rudolph, the only page using the template is Bluetooth. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I recently reviewed the links page and walked away remembering that links ought to be relevant, relatively non commercial (personal bugaboo, I won't link to anyone who tries launching pop-ups or hover ads) links. But the template's author seems to be a busy, credible editor,... including putting this link on Bluetooth back in May, 2006. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

I saw your comment on Wikipedia_talk:External_links: "someone didn't like a "how stuff works" EL on Bluetooth, with superficially justified reasons ... except that the external article actually complemented the WP topic article, and had some value to a reader."

Thoughtless editing, though, is in the eye of the beholder. Let me quote, explicitly this time (I paraphrased above), from WP:EL: Under "Links normally to be avoided:"

"In addition to the restrictions on linking, and except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

While I will grant you that the HSW article is better written, in a chatty sort of way, than ours is, I would be interested to know what fact you felt it contained that our article lacked that couldn't simply be added to our article? Perhaps you don't like the EL guidelines, but they are the guidelines. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

But Guidelines are not laws to be obeyed. I was trying not to cast your concerns in a negative light, in fact your edit action was clearly supported by the guideline. But what you're not taking into account is that the WP article is a technically detailed overview of Bluetooth; it's not "Bluetooth for dummies." The HSW article addresses a reader who wants to know, well, "how does it work." "What does it do for me?" "What kind of Bluetooth applications are commonly found?" Since our article doesn't discuss BT in such a way, the external article is notably different and useful to readers - "a unique resource" as the guideline you quote mentions. I do respect the EL guidelines, I just don't take them so literally. ... IMHO It's not just about the facts; it's about being an unbiased information resource for users. When we start banning or censoring certain external links, we're biased. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

— WP:NOT

Postscript: I can see how my comment reads like a personal attack, so I'm going to fix that directly. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

OK, yes, there is a reasonable point to what you're saying-- it's certainly true that our article has a lot to learn from the HSW article, not factually but in readability. And although I truly believe that the ideal approach to the difference between the two is to use the HSW article as a guide to improving ours, I recognize that that's not something that can be done in a few minutes, so yes, the link does have a place, for now. It would be nice if there was some way to tag such a link, though, to indicate that this was a resource that should be used temporarily until our article was improved. Peace! -- Mwanner | Talk 23:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP doesn't have to be everything to everybody. It's an encyclopedia. Not a "how to" or primer. Okay, maybe a good point, we could branch to a "how it works" article from teh main article. But I fail to see the jeopardy in External Links to other resources that readers can explore. I read the "links to avoid" on WP:EL, then read the HSW, and it seemed fine to me. I just wonder -- WHAT is the problem with HSW? Why are we resistent to a link to it? The number of ads, the sponsorship of the site,... what? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 00:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the link if I hadn't just cleaned up 12 - 15 spam links to the site in other articles. But the jeopardy in keeping links to sites like HSW is that then editors say to themselves, "OK, I don't have to make this article readable, I'll just link to HSW for the dummies." I think that that is the whole point of the part of WP:EL that I keep harping on-- External links can be used as a crutch to keep us from doing the hard work of writing the best possible article. To me, an encyclopedia should be readable and complete, and with hyperlinking, there's no reason it can't be both. But we have to be determined to get there.

The other reason to work to keep this stuff out is that if we're pretty open about External links, articles just fill up with them. Think about it-- if you had a site with medium-to-poor traffic, wouldn't you want to add links from every Wikipedia article that remotely matched one of your articles? That's just what's happening in many, many articles. And the more we let those links stay, the more payoff there is for the spammers, so it becomes a vicious circle.

Anyway, that's how it begins to look to one who has been doing little else but fighting spam for several months now. I plan on taking January and February off-- maybe things will look different when I return. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You make interesting points, but.... But. You're not convincing me because you're using arguments in this case with examples of other extreme cases. That page is nine fucking pages long, it's no means a "weak page" being propped up with an EL. The article is detailed and extensive. It does not answer "how do it work" to a layman, and HSW does that better, in a un-encyclopedic fashion. (Conversational tone, versus academic.) And since there are, what 3-4 links on that page (admittedly, I cleared a couple yesterday), "excessive ELs" is also not an issue. I appreciate the work you did clearing out clear, unmistakable spam by another user on other pages ... in the case I'm talking about, these complaints don't apply, see? What I'm trying to get across in the WP:ELis that if you edit Article A based on gripes you have with Articles B, C, and D, I'm a'gonna disagree wid ya. Clearly, you need a break from spam/vandal patrol. I can only do about a week's worth of patrolling per month myself. Vacations are good. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

We seem to be talking past each other. I wrote "But the jeopardy in keeping links to sites like HSW is that then editors say to themselves, 'OK, I don't have to make this article readable, I'll just link to HSW for the dummies.'" So in this case I'm not talking about making the article longer, I'm talking about making it more readable. The more general case, of course, is one of missing info.

Anyway, enough! I'm moving on. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm finally seeing your POV. Why make our WP article any more interesting, e.g. add a "how it works" section, when a See Also or External Links item does it for us. Agreed. I'm not sure that article can stand to be longer, maybe a separate article off the main article. Still, I wouldn't want to suppress a HSW link because we should (hate that word ;) ) have something like it internally, and just don't at the moment. — Thanks for sticking with the conversation. Peace, love and Wikiness, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

YouTube link RfC

I've filed an RfC over the YouTube link issue. Argyriou (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I chimed in a moment ago. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Text for a merged page Organizations & Companies

I have written some proposed text for a merged and simplified page, please see the continued discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations). This is also posted at the Companies & Corporation page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

List of Internet slang phrases

I apologize for my actions. I assumed that, because Oh noes redirects to List of Internet slang phrases, it belonged on that list. The Slimey 08:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

S'okay, there seem to be a number of redirect pages created for phrase which have been cleaned out of the [List of Internet slang phrases|list]]. It's quite messy. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Coast Guard Portal

Thank you for the work you are doing on Coast Guard pages. Please feel free to remove the avaiation category from any article that I put it on where it does not belong. You know much more about it than I do.

I have a request. I noticed a skeleton of a dormant portal that could use your expert editing: Portal:United States Coast Guard. The Navy and the Marine Corps seem to have very active portals at Portal:United States Navy Portal:United States Marine Corps that could be used as guides.

Also, you may want to look at the Coast Guard and Units section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force

--- Safemariner 17:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There seems to be a plethora of USCG WP Categories. I was preparing to submit Category:United States Coast Guard Air Stations for speedy delete ... until I realized it was the easiest way to put airstas under USCG bases, and the military airbases hierarchy. I'll see what I can do with the portal from time to time. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

I noticed you had added categories to the portal. I did a search and have added even more categories to Portal:United States Coast Guard/Categories --- Safemariner 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:USCG VC 11A 2 1969.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:USCG VC 11A 2 1969.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Whoops, forgot the licensing tag. Corrected, and image is no longer orphaned. 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

FA Cup Qualifying Rounds

David... I understand the point you make about deleting month-by-month result articles - I agree with you on that - but the Qualfying Rounds article is historical record of one period of the on-going competition. It is not a month-by-month account as such, the qualyfing rounds have finished now so it will not be used as a month-by-month results page. I hope this article is maintained because it does what Wiki does best - provide information often ignored by other media sources. doktorb _words^deeds 07:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a growing concern that any "almanac" or "sports results" pages are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See WP:NOT's section about "indiscriminate lists of information." Granted, there may be some discrimination here, but the current state is that football fans seem to think WP is a library of any information about the events. I disagree. I think WP needs to have objective articles about the topic, but not historical results and statistics from the topic. My hunch is that a Sports Wiki or some such is better suited for these kinds of pages. That's just my opinion, of course. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

United States of America military aircraft designation systems

You may want to add some Coast Guard information to United States of America military aircraft designation systems --- Safemariner 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the article ... the Coast Guard had adhered to Navy and Marine corps designation schemes since about 1922, if I recall. But i'll watch the page. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

2001

Why would you change my "vandalism" in 2001 when I only changed the spelling of "judgement" to "judgment" and then send me a nasty-gram about how I was vandalizing?

Don;t you have better things to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.133.61 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I DON'T have anything better to do. I may've used the wrong warning template, Template:test2 (but it WAS your second warning), just as you used the unnecessary spelling of "judgement."_{Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition, ISBN 0-19-861037-8.} So we're even. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, apparently I'm mistaken, the OED prefers with an "e," but according to this article, either is relatively appropriate. Don't take it personally. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)