User talk:ChazBeckett/Archives/2007/December

I'm trying to avoid an edit war
Hi, I understand you are willing to advice on policies and guidelines. I'm trying to avoid an edit war on KXAN-TV, specifically the entry about on-air talent Michelle Valles. Another editor is insistent that a recent DWI arrest be mentioned because the station hasn't reported the incident, whereas I feel it is unencyclopedic information and irrelevant to the article. However, if I am wrong, then I am willing to abandon my argument and let it stand. Do you think I'm out of bounds?

Geesh, I feel like I'm writing Dear Abby. Thanks, Paxsimius 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Paximus. I've reviewed the facts and it's my opinion that this information isn't appropriate for this article. The primary reason is the Biographies of living persons policy, which would apply to Michelle Valles. Though this particular article is not about Ms. Valles, the BLP policy applies to biographical information on any Wikipedia page. Since no other person in the article has biographical information (other than their position at the network), it is not appropriate to include information on specific incident for one anchor. The fact that the network is not reporting this incident is not a reason to include such information in the article. As the BLP policy states "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."
 * My recommendation is to remove the information from the article, citing WP:BLP and to leave an explanation on the article talk page. Feel free to link to this discussion if you wish. If the information is re-added, there's a noticeboard to involve people more familiar with this type of information.
 * Thanks for asking for advice, it's always the correct course of action when an edit war is the alternative. Happy editing, Chaz Beckett 13:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Much appreciation! Paxsimius 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, ChazBeckett! Thanks for commenting on my RfA! Just wanted to clarify something a little bit... While we may disagree on what to call what happened on Jón Þór Birgisson, my actions were to first add a source to the information being deleted, then to request from the deleting user their rationale - both of which are much more in line with "content dispute" than "reverting vandalism". So I hope you'll reconsider the !vote you're basing on a sympathy comment I left on a wiki-friend's user page. Either way, thanks for participating! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SatyrTN
It's not a content dispute when there are several reliable sources, it's totally non-libelous, it's NPOV, it's an accurate citation. X3210 was disruptively fighting and revert-warring without any arguments on his side. Maybe he's just utterly misled and ignorant about all our content policies, but the way he edited that article is bordering on intentional disruption and therefore, yes, vandalism. I replied here because we shouldn't clutter up the RfA with this. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:32, December 3, 2007
 * At least it's a very weak rationale for a strong oppose. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:34, December 3, 2007
 * Please re-read WP:VAND, especially the section I pointed out on the RfA page. Were the edits made by X3210 disruptive? Probably. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Were they vandalism? Absolutely not. A edit can easily be unproductive, disruptive and unsupported by consensus, and not be vandalism. Vandalism is very narrowly defined for a reason, so people don't throw the term around haphazardly. An admin should know this, in fact it's quite fundamental. I think misunderstanding a core policy is one of the strongest reason to oppose a candidate. Chaz Beckett 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: NFL passer rating ref
No problem. Yeah, taht article is quite a mess, shouldn't be too ahrd to fix ideally. But yeah, sorry if I seemed a little annoyed in the edit summaries, I've been really stressed of late (hence a low edit count the past month, for that matter). Wizardman 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To the opposers in my RfA
I would like to apologise for my intemperate comments during the Melsaran affair. I accept that I should have expressed myself more civilly, and should have waited for the ArbCom to explain themselves rather than jumping to conclusions and condemning them. I can honestly say that I regret my reaction.

In my defence, I would like to reiterate that I did not use the admin tools in any way in relation to the Melsaran affair. I am completely aware that it would be a very bad idea to wheel-war with ArbCom, and I can honestly say that I would never do so.

For what it's worth, I genuinely don't dislike the ArbCom. I respect the fact that they have to make tough decisions, and I understand that sometimes these decisions must be made in secret. It is true that I have a natural aversion to authority and secrecy; this is part of my character. But in future I will do my best to treat the arbitrators with more respect and to assume good faith on their part.

I served this community for seven months as an administrator, with very little criticism. I believe that I can continue to help Wikipedia by serving as an administrator. I ask you to look at the beneficial contributions I've made to the encyclopedia; I believe that the good I can do outweighs the problems with my somewhat combative nature.

Please give me a second chance. WaltonOne 13:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
  You got a Christmas card! → → →

Re: Current fiction
I've responded on my talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied again on my talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied to your recent message. --Pixelface (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC comments
Hi Chaz. My comment wasn't only directed at you. Others had also endorsed it as accurate, which at least point #1 wasn't. As I said in my statemnet on the talk page, I felt partly to blame on that mess as well, since it was my suggestion to create a new tag specifically for that problem that would be neutral and direct people to the talk page for further discussions. As the original comment by the Prof. was written, the 'problem' appeared to be solely COgden's own actions, when in fact you and I can share some of the blame there as well. That was all I was trying to say. This is such an emotive 'problem', that I honestly feel that many of us get a little carried away with some of our statements and inadvertently include 'events' from others in our statements against the other 'side'. I wasn't specifically pointing out you as a co-conspirator or anything, it's just when I was going through trying to find the history of the tag issue, so I could try to see when I made my suggestion, I saw your edit and saw that 'some' blame could also be co-shared. Hope you take this in the spirit in which it is meant, not as a personal attack. wbfergus undefinedTalk 18:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

1408
While I didn't write the section, and just keep it cleaned up, could you be kind enough to explain a few things to me? Specifically, how one can add references to something as simple as 1+4+0+8=13? Because, quite frankly, I'm at a loss as to how to cite BASIC MATH. It comes across as you have a beef against the Number 13 section, and I'd certainly like to hear what your problems are, other than "it's all OR!" even with such things as Mike himself in the movie adding the numbers up for us. Any help is most appreciated! ^_^ Nezu Chiza (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The original research part is the determination that the number 13 is a significant part of the film. Basically, why should this section exist at all? Obviously my disagreement is not with the addition itself (1+4+0+8=13). ;) The problem is that this section in the article contains many examples of various combinations of numbers summing to 13, while there's only one scene in the film where numbers being added to to 13 is explicitly shown. All other mentions in the section are an editor's interpretation of the film, which makes it OR. Perhaps it's a coincidence that the hotel opened in 1912 and 1+9+1+2 = 13 or perhaps it's not a coincidence. The point is that it's not up to us, as editors, to interpret the director's intentions in any given scene with regards to the number 13.
 * Now, if there's reliable source where (for instance) the director discusses the significance of the number 13 in scene X, Y and Z, those could be included in the article with the source cited. Currently the section has no cites at all. All we really have is that single scene where John Cusack adds up the numbers, which means we don't really have enough verifiable information for a section. I hope I explained myself clearly enough, please let me know if I didn't. Thanks! Chaz Beckett 17:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability issues
Chaz, I noticed your interst in notability as you marked a permutation essay as rejected. There is a lot of activity at WP:BIO and Wikipedia talk:Notability (media) which you might find interesting. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll take a look. Thanks for the heads-up! Chaz Beckett 12:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing recent film templates from articles
Please stop removing the recent film tags from articles. You nominated it for deletion so why not let the community decide over whether it should be used or not? Frankly I think it's ridiculous you nominated it for speedy deletion. It's not a recreation of previously deleted material. --Pixelface (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding this template to articles. It's quite likely that it will be deleted and it adds nothing to articles. I think it's substanstially the same as current fiction; any differences are semantics. In any case, they're going through TfD now, so speedy deletion is irrelevant. Chaz Beckett 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)