User talk:Chocolateboy/Archive 3

Lads
Hey, why did you delete the lads thing? Its not really something you can source, unless I made a website and then wrote up a thing about lads on it, which is kinda cheating... It was all accurate. I forgot to mention "eshays," but apart from that its pretty true and so on. Anyway. Yeah. whatever.

--nbk


 * Hi. Please take a look at Verifiability, Reliable sources and No original research.


 * chocolateboy 11:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seinfeld
Seinfeld discussion moved to User talk:Chocolateboy/Seinfeld.

Logical Quotation
I'm just getting started in Wikipedia. I think it would be fun to be a Wikipedian someday, as I do have some skills I can offer. I majored in history in college and was an award-winning newspaper reporter well-versed in the Associated Press writing style. I also possess strong grammar, spelling and punctuation skills. It drives me nuts to see writers in American English slide a quote mark inside a period or comma (when quote marks can only slide inside colons or semicolons). See http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp. However, I am not at all familiar with Wikipedia, the writing codes and just about everything else needed to write, edit or review. Any tips? Any thoughts? Any edits?


 * Hi there.


 * Thanks for your edits. Unfortunately, I've had to revert those that change the quotation style from "logical" to "illogical" quotation. This has been debated many times and the consensus is that we use logical quotation on Wikipedia. See Manual of Style (and here ;-).


 * chocolateboy 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll do some reading on the punctuation that you mentioned. If that's the wikipedia syle I'll just have to deal, right? Thanks again for the help. Appendophobia 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't think Wikipedia has come to a clear consensus on punctuation involving quotation marks. I read the writing guide style book as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks. I see no grammatical or historical basis for using the "logical" punctuation style of commas and periods outside quote marks. I guess I'll have to agree to disagree. I do understand Wikipedia is international and UK writers would state my punctuation style is in the wrong. I still plan to use Wikipedia often for reading and learning purposes, but I won't plan on doing any writing. I won't be able to write using incorrect punctuation in my own original articles or edits. Appendophobia 06:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. You mentioned the Quotation mark article on my talk page. Obviously a Wikipedia article is distinct from a Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline. My own view is that what you describe as the "UK" style is also the "hacker" style and (according to the CMS) the style preferred in technical contexts; and the "US" style is an artifact that has everything to do with obsolete typographical limitations and nothing of the logic one associates with, say, US corrections of UK orthographical inconsistencies.


 * Either way, I hope you will continue to edit and contribute here.


 * chocolateboy 13:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
Hi, I hope this isn't canvassing but I was wondering if you would be interested in this WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture. If not, could you share this link with editors you think may be interested. Thanks Ozmaweezer 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Netfirms
I saw (and responded to) your posting on the spam white list. If you're having trouble with particular spammers I wanted to invite you over to WikiProject Spam. Some of the regulars there are great investigators and it's often useful to have help, or just an extra set of eyes, when tracking down and thwarting spammers. -- SiobhanHansa 16:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Netfirms
I recently updated the Netfirms entry. Do you have any suggestions for further improvements? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess Taylor (talk • contribs) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scally
An article that you have been involved in editing, Scally, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Scally (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Christophe beck screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Christophe beck screenshot.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 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 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.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Loaded (magazine)
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Loaded (magazine), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations
I have nominated Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Collectonian (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FAR
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Meidan-i-Noor
The subject article is not a hoax, but a poorly written article about the gem that was the object stolen in the film Tuesday (see here). However the unsourced article about this fictional gem itself makes no mention of the film... and we certainly don't need an article about the gem that is longer than the article about the film. Let's set a redirect.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Changelogs
Please do not removed release history/related tables from software articles. Why? A)It takes considerable time to remake them B)The tables do no harm C)The tables provides useful information: ex. upcoming versions, branches, development history, which versions are supported D)There is precedent, see Firefox, Internet Explorer (under OS compatibility in addition to comparison is the years column which is like a release history), so it is not completely "irregular". It might not be predominant, but that does not mean it should be stamped out solely for "orthodoxy" Thank you. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Then the firefox release history page should be deleted, as shall all other pages? Release histories aren't readme's. Yes, I concede, some of them can be made more concise (ex. the Vuze page on discussion where I said it could have been pared down to just the major versions w/the latest version, but I don't have time to do that atm Edit:done), but they present notable information, such as the date major versions were released, and notable changes. Also, there was no talk on article pages for removal. The cleanup tags don't necessarily mean removal of lists either in all cases. Its more of a adjustment of length and focus on one medium to the other. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop removing information from wikipedia and saying it's rm based on the talk page when I cannot find anything in the talk page to back you up. Either discuss it on the talk page before you do it or don't do it at all. You need to let the other editors of the page get a chance to voice their opinion. Peppage (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to stop removing information from wikipedia


 * I don't "need" to do anything. None of these comments address the fact that copy 'n' pasted Changelogs are unencyclopedic.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed WP:NOTLAW, also they are not copied and pasted. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They are wikified Changelogs.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your link does not support anything. It only links to something that you asked. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Firefox is a Good Article. I highly doubt they would have missed a large release history. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to remove these from articles I will block you myself. Discuss the matters on the talk pages of the individual articles if you wish. -MBK004 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've just finished another round of reverting (can't revert another time though, for 3RR) removal of article information without discussion. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you continue to remove these from articles 'I will block you myself''


 * No. What you will do is abuse your delusion of power in an attempt to resolve this argument without further discussion.


 * As I mentioned before, a tiny minority of BitTorrent clients are padded out with changelogs that are flagged as unreferenced and unencyclopedic filler. NeXT, OpenBSD and Opera are also a featured articles. They don't copy 'n' paste their changelogs. Let's see what other people say: I've added the discussion to RfC.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited post -->reply: Um...you went from majority to minority of clients, so that undermines your argument of a category wide ban. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Most articles about BitTorrent clients don't copy and paste changelogs. At least one of the 2.5 articles that do/did are flagged with "please clean up the changelog list" templates. For what it's worth, I don't think anyone objects to the notable parts of changelogs being integrated into the article as prose.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like it if we went case by case situation. Also, you even added firefox, which is GA. While if you had discussed, and had done these separately, the fact that you had repeatedly removed information from multiple articles makes me wonder if you aren't just bringing this up as a selected statistical argument (sorry, can't remember the word its called from last year when I learned weasel words and such), although I can't hold it here against you, as we're assuming good faith. To answer your questions: Deluge does not have the flag, and yes, it may be so on some other articles, but who are you to declare that it is so on all that is not FA/GA status? There are so many bittorrent clients (see comparison page for example), and most of them are minor stubs, that I'm not surprised at your "statistic." Its almost like saying "water is wet." The fact that so many ones exist doesn't mean every article in the entire section is the same. Vuze does not copy and paste, and nor does Deluge (at least, the parts I worked on, and I am trimming it tomorrow as I have time). Mtorrent, which has a considerable amount of editors, might be messy because of the many anon editors, but it can be salvageable if its brought to the attention of some other editors. I actually think the Mtorrent one is very minor, and just provides a comparison of version sizes, as Mtorrent is about the light-weight-ness of the client. (It used to have some other stuff looking through history, but it's been removed, so I don't know atm) Going by a similar argument, we shouldn't have any images on wikipedia that are on other sites, cause obviously, they are "copy and paste" and are available on other sites.

Lastly, I believe flagging, editing, and improvement is better than deletion. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Going by a similar argument, we shouldn't have any images on wikipedia that are on other sites, cause obviously, they are "copy and paste" and are available on other sites.


 * That's not a similar argument.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that is essentially what your "copy paste"/on other websites argument is! &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with Wikipedia? We don't include random images either. We don't include random anything. What is notable about Deluge's changelog?


 * chocolateboy (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

←"No. What you will do is abuse your delusion of power in an attempt to resolve this argument without further discussion." Actually, it is well within my authority granted by the community to block you for edit warring. You have been told to discuss this matter on the talk pages of the articles within WP:BRD. Consider this a final warning because the next time you remove content of this nature without prior consensus you will be blocked for it. -MBK004 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is well within my authority granted by the community to block you for edit warring.


 * I've done no such thing (been away for a week; made single edits to articles). Please prosecute this, though. I'm fascinated to see how it turns out.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out (on reverting without discussion which was more of across multiple articles, not on 3RR, which neither of us has reached, yet, both 1 away):

     

On discussion:

"Also, there was no talk on article pages for removal." (above)

"based on the talk page when I cannot find anything in the talk page to back you up. Either discuss it on the talk page before you do it or don't do it at all. You need to let the other editors of the page get a chance to voice their opinion (above)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deluge_(software)&diff=prev&oldid=251031540 ...what tags? you still haven't addressed the question. You are removing valuable information. Please STOP]

rv as per: there is nothing (recently) on the talk page of this article on the removal of the release history that I can see

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vuze&diff=prev&oldid=249579294 rv per: what talk on talk page?! Also, prose was more of: needs to be focused on other things]

&eta;oian

&Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers 05:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your point is. I've removed unencyclopedic sections from articles about half a dozen times in the last eight days, never violating the 3 revert rule, and never trying to. As a result, I've been told that I will be banned if I make any further edits. Is this what you're highlighting?


 * chocolateboy (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just pointing out that MBK004's statement that it was done without discussion after a call for discussion was made before today (See peppage's comment above and what I listed in revision history) was unheeded is supported. I'm not really sure on 3RR across multiple articles though. I'm not discussing that actually, its really up between you and MBK. Note that I put at start that neither of us reached 3RR on any one article and that it was only on discussion. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers


 * I don't see what this has to do with redundant changelogs in software articles.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me restate this again:


 * A)Not all articles in a category have "changelogs" (which I contend are release histories) which are copied/pasted, overly long, and unwarranted.
 * B)There was a call for discussion on the noted articles earlier.
 * C)There was no discussion on those articles today in your/mine 2x round of reverts. (note did not past 3RR, but still no discussion after one was called earlier)
 * D)Your removals contained a GA, which I just can't justify doing w/o discussion, esp. when it is due to a "blanket ban" like removal reasoning.
 * E)Release Histories can and do provide informative information.

Also, see: WP:NOTLAW

I don't know if this would be reason for a ban, as I'm not an admin, and don't really know the specifics behind it, but I do know that this isn't proper wikipedia policy. Point in case: I am not talking about banning. That's really up to MBK004, since I have no idea on it. I am talking about the no discussion category wide removals.

&eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Most featured software articles don't inline changelogs. Most software articles don't include changelogs. Most articles about BitTorrent clients don't copy 'n' paste changelogs. The "most such and such articles" argument is pretty decisive. The rest of your points purport to be about this discussion rather than about improving the quality of Wikipedia articles.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Most" articles is like saying "water is wet" Do you know how many stubs there are in software?! Just in bittorrent there are like >50 clients! Also, as restating: It might not be predominant, but that does not mean it should be stamped out solely for "orthodoxy." There is precedent. The discussion is about improving wikipedia articles. Release histories do contain information. They basically provide a easy comparison of various information, such as release dates (history), support, major changes, size (in the case of Mtorrent which is relevant to the article), etc. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Most featured software articles" and "most articles about BitTorrent clients" are trivially verifiable. As for your other points, I suggest we wait to see what others have to say.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused again. You were the one who brought up most featured software first. Also, I replied at my talk. Thank you for noticing that the ([your]) blanket assumption is unverifiable though. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm confused again.


 * See the links for the "verification". Either way, please stop spamming my talk page.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology
In my attempt to prevent the not discussed removal of information that I deem deserving to be there, I overlooked your long history of contributions to wikipedia. I might have come across as too harsh. As per good faith, I'm assuming that you've made the completely rationale human error of forgetting some of the many procedures on wikipedia. Please accept my apology. Disclaimer: This does not mean that I concede release histories do not belong on wikipedia. I still stand by the basics of my arguement. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not deleting the changelogs to annoy you or anyone else. I'm deleting them because a) I think they're glaringly unencyclopedic and b) the articles that contain them are (for the most part) flagged for cleanup.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Sorry if you are seeing quite a few edit conflict messages, I tend to edit my contributions (article and talk) quite often, my fault. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving on
I have to go to sleep today, but perhaps we can agree on a compromise? Instead of removing all release histories outright in specific categories without discussion, perhaps we can agree to modify (or point out for others to modify) the ones existing (save for GA/FA/those already examined to save time) as to trim unneeded information, and to make the tables more informative, like the GA/FA ones? If appropriate and agreed apon, the release history can too be removed/modified into a different format. This would be, of course, on an article to article basis, where other editors are given the chance to voice their proposed changes on the release histories in the talk page of each article, as we are just discussing what is basically a "claimed" manner of style vs a "claimed" method of useful information presentation between the two of us. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will remove changelog copypasta from the tiny minority of articles in which they appear on the grounds that they're non-notable unencyclopedic spam. They also tend to crop up in articles that have been flagged for numerous other wikiviolations, presumably because they appear (falsely) to address stub/unreferenced complaints.


 * If there's a consensus that the specific articles I've edited should keep them, or that software articles in general should embed changelogs as wikified lists, then of course I will cease and desist.


 * Until then, let's please see what others have to say.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This just confused me again. When has "stub/unreferenced" complaints been "remove release history", and release histories are not copy+paste!!!! Have you looked at the code/history that wrote them?! &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Deluge and Vuze both have multiple issues, and both have "expand me" and "reference me" inscribed on their dusty windscreens (March 2008, July 2008). The changelog section is flagged for cleanup in both articles.


 * chocolateboy (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What does reference me have anything to do with Release Histories?! The baseless and unverifiable assumptions that release histories are there to solve that is ludicrous. Also, I don't see anywhere on wikipedia that says release histories are not allowed to be on wikipedia due to "clean up" tag. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition, can you please stop saying that release histories are "copyapaste." If you actually compare it to the changelogs, you will see it is much more trimmed, and contains information not found on the changelogs ex. file size (Mtorrent), alpha/beta names, trunks (FF), and Support status. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Casablanca (film)
Hello. Since it involves some material you added to the article, you might like to weigh in on a discussion about deleting material from Casablanca (film) which is taking place at Talk:Casablanca (film). Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)