User:Peter M Dodge/Archives/archive jan222006

A little random
This is probably a little weird, but I stumbled upon your page and saw your Jehanne d'Arc picture. I'm a Joan of Arc fangirl, which isn't very common, so I was delighted to find such an image. You have won my respect. :D --SpecialKRJ 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right on! :) ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about the Project
Hi I was wondering if you can pls explain about the project of neutrality I mean the purpose and what kind of work you already achieved and who you mentain the neutrality of an Artical ? a reply will be highly appreciated regards.. phippi46 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Myspace
First of all, I like your user/talk page. Now, about Iron Man, the citation in question is the director's own blog for the film (and has been repeatedly confirmed as such). As you can see from the article, he said, "The internet is full of faulty info. I wanted to have at least one place where the facts would be correct." This is not a citation of some random fanboy who is sharing some anonymous scoop news. I understand your concern about using Myspace, but this is an exception to the rule. Myspace has become an outlet in several ways when it comes to film, with sponsored film blogs popping up. I've presented the situation at the talk page for WP:RS to see how others would see it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC) You removed the official (myspace) page for the Little Tokyo Anime Festival for Nisei Week. Do not remove myspace pages blindly, some people use them because they don't want to create dedicated websites. falsedef 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is information in the blog, the studio ought to have an official source (from the studio page). Link to the direct source, not the myspace. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 01:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Studios do not always detail the process of production. Very few, if any, film articles use information from studio pages because quite simply, there isn't much.  Blogs are generally not accepted as reliable sources because the authenticity of the information is called into question.  However, this is the director himself reporting on the blog; there's no authenticity issue at hand, thus, the citation is acceptable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read this in our reliable sources guidelines. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 01:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world." The individual is identified as the director himself; I don't think that the information he provides about the film could really be called into question. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a top-level http://myspace.com/xxxx link that is the main page, as opposed to the blog.myspace.com - I would accept that as a compromise. Blogs, especially as primary sources, simply fail as a reliable source.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you understand. The reason why most blogs don't qualify as reliable sources is that the information cannot be verified due to the amateur authorship of bloggers.  Under self-published sources at WP:RS, blogs written by people in their area of expertise are accepted.  Jon Favreau is a film director and has been credited as such, so he is able to address his area of expertise, in this case the film Iron Man.  Just because something is labeled a "blog" doesn't mean it should be discarded immediately, and I'm concerned that you may have removed authentic citations in your blog.myspace.com deletion process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles should rely on verifiable, third party sources. Primary sources are allowable in some very rare circumstances, when they do not constitute original research, but this iis not such a case.  In the future, please ensure the links you add are from reliable, third party sources, in accordance with the verifiability policy.  I understand that you are frustrated by the removal of your link - however, if the claims made in the blog have merit, they should be easily cross-referenced with third-party sources, and you should use those instead, so that Wikipedia's integrity is stronger.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the only official page you have to offer is a Myspace page, it probably doesn't meet notability guidelines. There are plenty of free hosts that you can get your site hosted on, if you do not have money.  Please peruse them.  I believe Google has such a service.  By the way, I did not revert a "top level" myspace.com page, I reverted a blog.myspace.com page.  You may still link to the main page - just, the blog is not an appropriate external link.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 02:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not my page. I don't need your advice on how to obtain a webpage, nor do the owners of the page in question. Why does it matter if it's on a blogspace or otherwise, how does that gain any more reliability than secondary domain names? That section is not the article itself, and does not need to meet notability guidelines (it does not use namespace) -- it's a subfair that's part of a larger fair which does meet notability. I don't care what hosting they're using and neither should you. falsedef 06:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to give you a heads-up regarding Myspace blogs. Since someone at your RfA brought up how Raul654 added blogs\.myspace\.com to the spam blacklist (a typo which has been corrected since) as requested by Jimbo, I contacted Raul on his talk page.  I don't know if this was the basis of your AWB process, as you did not mention it to any of us.  In talking to Raul, he recommended that links to valid Myspace blogs be added to the spam whitelist by admins, which overrides the blacklist.  I've contacted an admin to assist with the two blog links that I've been disputing.  While this seems like a tedious process (and I don't know if I want to rattle the cages of the head honcho), I thought I'd let you know about the whitelist possibility so you can inform any future dissenters what they can do to re-add Myspace blogs validly if you plan to continue the AWB process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct. The only reason I was AWB-removing the links is because meta blacklisted sites should not be on Wikipedia.  Any links which do have a consensus to be a valid link should be whitelisted and readded.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA
 Selmo would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Selmo to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. -- Selmo  (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the nomination statement, as to why I'd think you'd make a good admin. Thanks, -- Selmo  (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of Good Faith Warning
Hello! I added the wa rning agf1 because you have refused my request for discussing the reference removal you made to the Darren Hayes article. As I've noted in its discussion page, the page is official and should be allowed for use per the external links policy (it is "an authority"). Since you continue to remove the reference without discussing the specifics of your reasoning, I can only assume that you are assuming bad faith on my part. If this is not the case, I apologize and will rescind my accusation...I just want an explanation so that we, and the other editors of the page, can be on the same page. I'm sure your much more experienced than I am at this, hence why I'd like your explanation. If I've caused you undue stress or wasted much of you time, I apologize, I just want a clear and precise explanation. SERSeanCrane 04:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand both the intentions of the templated warnings and the Assume good faith policy then.  Assume good faith means that I make no negative representations about the editors I interact with unless they prove themselves to be disruptive.  I have made no representations of your edits, one way or another, and therefore there is no infraction of AGF.  The link that was removed it self-referential and biased.  Generally speaking, it is bad to refer on primary sources for information as they tend to be biased.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The point that the link is supporting is "Darren Hayes frequently uses MySpace to communicate with his fans." To me, this seems like a great source for supporting this point. Now if the issue is the point itself, it should've been removed along with the reference...is that the issue? SERSeanCrane 04:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be frank, the claim is relevant - how? I don't think it's very relevant or encyclopedic, and as well, a blog is not a reliable souce - as I explained, primary sources are generally regarded as unreliable because of bias, and also because of the propensity in some primary sources to qualifiy as original research.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 04:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "The original motivation for the NOR policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas." This is not a personal theory, merely a statement of fact as observed in the primary source. Given the blog is "official" there is no bias - hence "official." Political blogs with an agenda against right wing conservatives is most likely biased. A blog of thoughts by the artist in question is not. SERSeanCrane 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the intent of these policies is to enforce a very simple tenet: Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, and it is NOT an advertising venue. "Official" primary sources are likely to be extremely biased - after all, the artist or person has a lot to gain from a positive promotion and a lot to lose from a negative impression.  As such, these sources are usually quite biased.  While the neutral point of view policy does not explictly apply to external links, the reliable source policy sets a certain expectation in terms of the content of a link.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 05:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Wizardry Dragon, hope you don't mind my post :P. As I was pointed here, let me note here as well as on my page, we are not a place for marketing. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 05:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AWB use
Please stop setting up your AWB to blindly remove all blogs and myspace links, these need to be judged independently of their merit, and not just blindly deleted based upon the url. Many of these sites are very official and as such have no reason to be deleted. thanks --T-rex 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC) at WP:RS. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * blog.myspace.com is in no way a reliable source, and as such, I have removed several blog.myspace.com links. If you really feel they are reliable, I suggest you discuss the matter
 * I am asking you not to make blanket statements like you just did above. To assume that everything at that url is an unreliable source is nonsence. Reliable resources are determined based upon content and authorship, not the url.  Please at least look at the site before deleting useful references from articles, thanks --T-rex 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But they are - blogs are not reliable sources, and often constitute original research. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A blog by either an expert on the subject or the subject of the article is a reliable source, as it isn't my blog I fail to see how WP:OR would apply here. --T-rex 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether you are the author or not. If it can be cross-referenced, use reliable secondary sources.  If it cannot, it should not be included in the encyclopedia per the No Original Research policy.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 05:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Peter is correct blog.myspace should not be used see WP:EL and WP:RS blogs should not be linked to and rarely pass RS. Myspace is very rarely a good source and myspace blogs are even worse. removing them is a good thing. Cheers Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says that blogs are generally not accepted as reliable sources because of amateur authorship and false authority. However, when the authority is established, as with notable figures using MySpace blogs to share information with a fan base, these sources definitely qualify as reliable.  This isn't a random user's Myspace blog being cited to back a statement that so-and-so is the best thing since sliced bread -- I would clearly support removal of such citation.  However, Myspace blogs are differentiated in usage where you just can't say, "Oh, it's a blog?  And on Myspace?  Get rid of it."  There are exceptions to the rule.  "Cheers." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is not a very compelling reason to accept an argumentation. If there are exceptions you should have a clearly outlined position.  If the claim is reputable and can be cross-referenced, please use the secondary sources.  Otherwise, it should not be included in the article.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your rule, not the policies'. The content in the policies have already been pointed out to address that blogs and Myspace can be accepted if they meet certain criteria.  You seem to be ignoring that altogether.  I'm not suggesting that Myspace blog entries should replace print records and such.  However, if a director reports encyclopedia-worthy production information on his blog for the film, can't this be cited?  The director is the authority when it comes to the film, and I don't see why a case like that should be dismissed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 11...if a blog is written by a recognized authority, such as the subject in question, it is not a violation of WP:EL.SERSeanCrane 06:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are places to address issues and gather consensus. Repeating the same point over is unhelpful, and I would ask you to refrain from doing.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me explain this. This was a link referencing the release date of an album.  The myspace blog that was referenced was written by the writter and lead songer of the album, announcing the aforementined release date.  Sure there are other sites that have this date listed, but there really is no reason not to reference the origional announcment from what is comparativlly a very official source instead.  I agree that referenceing random blogs isn't a good idea, but if the author can be identified as a reliable source who cares what the url is, these are much more equivelent to a press release then a blog. think about it --T-rex 06:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then reference the other reliable sources. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 06:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "I dont want to" is not a very compelling reason not to use the secondary sources. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok per RS via WP:V "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources" that should cover it. get third party source if you can, Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 06:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You've stated myspace constitutes a primary source. From WP:RS - Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources. If the blog is official, how is it not reliable? And when you remove the references, are you actually checking the points the reference supports of blindly removing them? SERSeanCrane 06:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A person posting on themselves, or a group posting about themselves constitutes a primary source. At this point you're just wikilawyering and disrupting my page to prove your point.  Please refrain from doing so, or I may remove your comments.  If you have something to add to the discussion, then add it, but please ask yourself "am I adding to Wikipedia in a positive way by hitting save?"  I don't think repeating yourself on my talk page is very constructive.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize, this was not my intent. I am simply refuting what you've presented with a logical explanation. If you'd like to cease conversation about the topic, let me know SERSeanCrane 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Verifiability policy on Wikipedia is one of our core tenents. Most importantly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  We are not a news source, for that you should try [en.wikinews.org Wikinews].  If you are reporting about an event that has occured in the past, a primary soruce is neither desirable or appropriate.  For news events, you should be citing a reliable news source such as the Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times, etc.  Using a primary source as a citation for an event in Wikipedia weakens the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole.  You are essentially relying on a person that their account of something that they participated in is correct.  I do not understand how you cannot understand how the bias in such an event would be present.  Plase tell me if clarification is needed.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Crazy" lyrics
I reverted your AWB edit to Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song), because the MySpace blog link you removed led to the lyrics of the song published on the band's official MySpace page, and that is perfectly in line with WP:EL. While the lyrics might be available on many other websites, this is probably the only place where they are made available by the copyright's holder (and thus the only one to not match Restrictions on linking #1). And the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria on linking to MySpace or blogs doesn't apply here since it's an official page. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy King Day
"'The greatness of a community is most accurately measured by the compassionate actions of its members, ... a heart of grace and a soul generated by love.' - Coretta Scott King (attributed)"

Assume good faith?
I don't understand your comment in User_talk:Ilena. Where was I not assuming good faith? --Ronz 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling a user disruptive seems to be assuming bad faith in her edits. Please realise that she already feels persecuted to some degree and you only really provide fuel for that fire by accusing of her anything.  Give her some space and we can see if she can be guided to contribute positively.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I used "disruptive" rather than point out the specific behavioral policies she was violating. Still, point taken. --Ronz 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Association of Members' Advocates
As part of the Association of Members' Advocates, I have recently taken your case with regards to the Darren Hayes article. This case was brought to the AMA's attention by SERSeanCrane and it concerns you and Eagle 101. I have a minor request, please post all comments concerning this dispute on the case page, found here, I believe that given how isolated your case is now it will make everyone's life easier if we keep it in one place. I will ask SERSeanCrane to post his accusations under the Discussion section, and then I would like you and Eagle 101 to each briefly respond once. This will give me enought time to read up on the case. I look foward to working with you to solve this dispute, and just so you know, I am always availible from 11p.m. US Eastern time to 4 or 5 a.m. -- DanielFolsom T|C|U 09:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)