User talk:Gavin.collins/Archive 9

objectivity
I think it's a noble goal to raise the standard from "verifiability" to "objectivity". But isn't objectivity just another word for truth? And on Wikipedia, we don't base anything on a standard of truth. There's a good reason for that. Truth tends to be my word against yours. "I know I don't have a verifiable reliable source that will say what I'm saying is true. But I'm right and you're wrong, because the truth is on my side." Now replace "the truth" with "objectivity".

Not only do I think the standard is unworkable. But I also think it tends to undermine the legitimacy of the guideline. People say "there's no way this is objective. It's a standard invented by a group of editors, and why do they get to make up their own standard?" But if we say "you have to verify that something is important," you quickly realize we're not just making up the standard. We're working with a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia: if you're going to claim something, you have to verify it in a source that has the legitimacy to back it up. Randomran (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the context of WP:N, objective evidence of notablity is given by reliable secondary sources. It is objective evidence, in the sense that you or I can see those sources being cited in the article; the evidence is real, can be counted, read and commented on and its existence is independent of your or my opinion. Perhaps I can ask another editor to explain if I have not convinced you? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, you just described verifiability. Evidence given by reliable secondary sources, which other editors can see, count, read, and comment upon, which is independent of either of our opinions. What's the difference between what you just said and verifiability? Randomran (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I suspect that they are different, but I am stumped to say how and not even sure why. I have asked Slrubenstein, as he seems to have a tighter grip on these concepts. My view is that notability is itself a subjective concept, but once you accept it, it can be proven to exist through objective evidence that is independent of a Wikipedian's opinion. It can't be evidenced by citing another person's opinion if it is published in a reliable source (e.g. notability is claimed with reference to someone's POV -see my example above), but if that person has commented on a particular topic in a reliable source, that is objective evidence of notability. Either I am not explaining myself well, or it down to the fact I don't understand what I am talking about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The best way I can put it is that notability is the verification of a subject's importance. It's not a subjective standard invented to keep stuff out. It's literally the only way we measure anything on Wikipedia. Because we don't have any way to quantify objectivity or truth, the next best thing is reliable sources. Randomran (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I can do is give my opinion - I am doing it here because i do not see a thread at the policy talk page. But I would get rid of the word "objective." I think the word "objective" usually has two meanings. One is metaphysical, that something has a being or truth independent of human existence - and I think this is the kind of "truth claim" our verifiability is all about NOT being. Objective has another, normative meaning: everyone agrees that this is so. But here we walk a fine edge, not just because people can mix up the metaphysical and normative meanings, but because NPOV is meant to serve multiple even opposing points of view. I think that we are better off ditching the word, it can only cause confusion. I do hink that there is a point underneath or behind the word and it is a point worth explaining using several words rather than searching for just one. The point is this: when something is notable, even people who do not agree with the view (people who are partial and opposing) acknowledge it is notable, and people who take no view at all (people who are impartial) consider it notable. What do I mean? Let's look at the Jewish-Palestinian conflict. Zionists often quote the Palestinian Convention as a source. I do not think any Paklestinian would claim it is non-notable, although they may accuse Zionists of misinterpreting it. Anyway, my point is, here is a document that both sides of a dispute refer to. That is one way of proving it is notable. If people who oppose a point of view cite something from the opposing view, I think we can agree it is notable. As for impartial people, well, one example is librarians of major universities or public libraries. With limited budgets, they cannot afford to subscribe to every academic journal. I do not think librarins are partial to one discipline or another, or to one view; they just seek the most widely read or widely cited journals i.e. they have their own criteria. If most major academic libraries subscribe to a journal or newspaper, i would say it is a notable source. So I have come up with two criterial for notability that I think are different from verrifiability, but also I have avoided the word "objective," and i think these are reasonable criteria for "notability" most people would agree with. I would rather see our policy spell this out that use the word "objective." Feel free to move this comment to the policy talk page if you wish to pursue a discussion there! Best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The thread I have in my sights is WT:N. I think what Slrubenstein is saying is that objectivity and verfiability may be related, but it is probably better to use on term rather than the other, as objectivity can mean different things, depending on the context. I have happy to drop the term "objective" and go for the ther "verifiable" instead. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Something I'm working on
I've been working on trying to create a unified guideline for what fiction articles are - something that's more fundamental than WAF (which is just a MoS for fiction), and instead deals with the basic problem of what it means to cover things that are not real in an encyclopedia, and what fundamental issues that involves. My hope is that by clarifying that, dealing with the notability issue becomes easier. I've got a draft at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction. I'd welcome any comments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will comment on the discussion page. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction
The only edit history for Wikipedia:Fiction is a redirect to the Notability/Fiction page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the history because I was moving a page to its location, and moving a page over a redirect requires history deletion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Insulting and condescending.
To imply that I don't really have any right to edit WP:FICT because I don't use the talk page is incredibly arrogant, rude, and insulting. I've been participating in the discussion for over a year and have had numerous interactions with you, in fact. Your message to me is a fucking farce. ThuranX (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I gather from your uncivil language that you are somehow annoyed at my message, but why you are annoyed and why you are choosing to use intemperate language is a bit of mystery. Since I did not imply in any way that you don't really have any right to edit WP:FICT, but in fact asked you to make your own contribution rather than revert mine, I fail to see how you could take offence. On the contrary, I am rather hoping that you will comment on my proposal which is why I created the discussion specifically for this purpose, and with you in mind. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Enron
Hi, about your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business/Accountancy task force, I'm interested in collaborating. I've heard an accounting professor/author give a very clear explanation of the Enron scandal as basically being about management toying with the basic entity concept of accounting. Perhaps using that would help clarify matters for readers in a good way. Basically, the accountants screwed up by accepting managements' preference for what entity level should be the subject of their audits. It shoulda been a bigger entity than the formal Enron company, and should have included in all the separate-only-on-paper related entities. Also, I am familiar with SSRN and believe the working papers there are pretty reliable, can be used with care. I'm not sure what "section on the Enron scandal" you are referring to, separate from the Enron scandal article. If you want, perhaps you could start a sandbox version of one of them to work on, with a Talk page for us to discuss the SSRN articles and other sources. Let me know. doncram (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you been able to download the article from SSRN? If so let us discuss what is relevant to the article at Talk:Enron scandal and see if we can work towards your interest in the entity concept. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well...
This probably goes on the list of things I never thought I'd type but:
 * "Gavin, thanks for making that policy edit." :-)

Hobit (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think the current version of WP:PLOT will last, as it is verbose. I think the original version is more terse, but is much shorter and did not invite goldfish editing (i.e. tiny edits that do not result in any substantial change and which ignore the previous edits that went before). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree on the verbosity problem. But I think it is a clear net improvement.  Thanks! Hobit (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EP
It's with a modicum of irony that I point you to WP:EP - please propose your changes on the talk page first. Rd232 talk 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you man by irony. You know that WP:V and WP:OR are established policies and guidelines, so I have no idea why you might think that they are not policies that most Wikipedians agree upon. Your revert makes no sense in this resepect - if the problem of unsourced content is not spelt out, then what issue issue is this policy suppossed to address? I have started a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy, as you suggest. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at WP:FICT
I'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I welcome this proposal, because it looks as if you are attempting to escalate the discussion because your edits are being challenged. I can't see any mediator accepting such a case, as they have much more important behavioural and editorial issues to be getting on with. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You misread my intent entirely, and the proposal is already being considered favourably by potential mediators. Hiding T 12:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like who, for instance? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, you either want to do it or you don't. Your choice, but rather than prolong you actually making a decision, I'll just leave off further comments until you decide. Hiding T 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are just making this stuff up. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you. I'm amused at how you reconcile that with WP:AGF. If I peruse our policy on that, the section on dealing with accusations of bad faith points me to the dispute resolution process, which recommends mediation. Which you still haven't made a decision on. So, rather than continue this, I repeat my request that you consider mediation. Hiding T 12:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think your request for mediation is in good faith, Hiding, and your refusal to discuss your amendments to WP:FICT tends to support this view - its just a blocking tactic from where I stand. You just have to accept that your edits are open to challenge and discuss them - mediaiton is the not the long-term solution to what will be an onging process. I am only one of many editors who are likely to challenge your amendments over time, so you had better get used to challenge. I am a reasonable editor, so in fairness, it is you who needs to make a leap of faith and re-enter the discussion. If you have any personal issues with me, make them explicit, so we can discuss them. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no issue with my edits being challenged, and my contribution history and block log will support that. Please desist in your attempts to provoke me and learn to focus on content rather than the editor. That way you will actually demonstrate that your assertion that you are a reasonable editor has substance. Accusing me of making things up and bad faith are against policy and make you appear to be a bully.  I doubt that's the appearance you want to project, so it would be best all around if you actually followed our behaviourial policies and desisted from acting like one.  If you find yourself unable to do so, as indicated above, I am perfectly happy to follow the dispute resolution process. That you continually reject any attempts to follow that process is worrying from my end. Hiding T 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you might have issues about being challenged. I have never seen mediation used in this way before, so I am skeptical about the process and suspicious of your motives.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no issues with being challenged, but if you do believe that to be the case, and you continue to reject mediation, I am left with suggesting arbitration. Your statement indicates you can afford no good faith to me, which implies a breakdown oin the wiki process.  Either you need to step beyond your stated pre-conceptions and accept that I have an equally valid view to yours and that we need to collaborate rather than act confrontationally, or we need an arbitrator to settle this dispute. Hiding T 09:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that you have an equal if not more valid view to mine. However, as regards the need for mediation and arbitration, I think you are talking through your posterior. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then stop second guessing me. Use your posterior for sitting upon rather than for thinking with. Hiding T 10:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Touché! --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Content forking
I think probably there's a need to work on Content forking. It's drifted a long way from what it was created to be, here. If there is a consensus on Wikipedia to treat overlaps and duplicate articles as content forks, I have no problem with that, but it needs better definition at Content forking than currently exists. Currently Content forking contradicts itself, as the section on "Accidental duplicate articles" is in a list of things which are not content forks but also states "Regardless of whether he or she deliberately created the fork...". It can't both be a fork and not a fork. Where do you want to continue this discussion? Hiding T 17:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have to accept that if a content fork could be unintentional, then the outcome is the same, even though a dispute about point of view is not the reason for its creation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have to accept that if a content fork could be unintentional, it would still be a content fork. The current iteration of Content forking actually states the opposite, which is illogical.  But no matter, I'll get an actual copy-editor in to take a pass. Hiding T 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Directories and databases
- um hard to leave the template if you don't get rid of it, lol --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 01:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is just a reminder for me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * poke --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GNG
The WP:GNG does not use the word "non-trivial", but does use the words "more than a trivial mention" which is exactly what non-trivial means. While it comes under the heading of "Significant coverage" since FICT doesn't say what it is, it will be contented to rather be higher than lower as the word signigiant implies more than moderate. That was really the problem I had with it before. I admit non-trivial may be at the other extreme. I think its best here then to reinterate what signifigant means. I do realize people can go to the GNG, but many elwayers won't. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC) On the one hand, I do recognise that your approach is not totally invalid, but I wish you would understand why I object to it. Although WP:BK and WP:MOVIE use the term "non-trivial", they define this term in both the body and the foot notes in terms of sourcing, rather than in terms of focus of the coverage itself (e.g. tertiary sources, such as database listings, and self-published sources such as blogs are not evidence of notability). Personally, I consider sourcing to be a seperate issue, dealt with by WP:SOURCES. Furthermore, it is hard to discuss this issue in terms of trivia at all, as again, this can be viewed as an entirely seperate issue dealt with by Trivia sections. If we go back to the roots of what is trivial and non-trival, my understand of what is non-trivial is illustrated by WP:GNG, which says
 * I don't think the change that you made to WP:FICT by substituting "significant" with "non-trivial" is of benefit, becasue it appears you are arguing that coverage for fictional topics should only be "non-trivial" which is the bare mininium, where as the term "significant" is somewhat higher that. I am sure you are acting in good faith, but in my eyes your change looks like you are trying to water down the requirement for significant coverage made in WP:GNG, and for this reason I don't accept your changes. I would argue that your departure from WP:N has been made to give special treatment to fictional topics not afforded to other subject areas, and I am not sure what your motivation is. If there is a benefit, please explain.


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material


 * I just don't agree that the term "non-trivial" does this issue justice: only significant coverage can "anchor" a topic to its sources, otherwise it is not possible to distinguish between content forks and articles which genuinely meet all of Wikipedia's content policies, such as the Terminator series of content forks which are not the subject of significant coverage. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning. Without actually explaining in the article (I feel a wikilink back to the GNG would not suffice) it will almost certainly be used to hold sources to higher standards than they should. If a review of 5 paragraphs has one paragraph talking about a character in-depth, then that may be viewed, without the explanation as being "insignificant". At the same time an entire paragraph devoted to explaining one character is hardly trivial commentary given the size of the article (assuming all paragraphs are decent length).
 * Part of this has to do with the poor choice of wording in the GNG. Significant tends to hold a higher standard than what the GNG requirement actually specifies.
 * Due to the controversial nature of fictional element articles I believe we need to go the extra mile and spell out something like this, if indeed significant is to be used. For other SNGs they do not have nearly the same level of controversy. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant does imply a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, I agree. But the issue of content forks still remains: if you don't have a standard that is high, you can't distinguish between a "genuine" aricle and a content fork. The Terminator content forks all contain non-trivial coverage related to their subject matter. For example, the article Terminator (franchise) does not contain any significant coverage about its subject matter, ie. coverage that address the concept as the Terminator as a franchise directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content, even though I use the word franchise in its broadest possible sense. Significant coverage is vital for anchoring an article to its sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of Terminator, creating a franchise page is considered a common practice when you deal with multiple works within a series. If you disagree that's a separate issue that should be taken up elsewhere.
 * However, I think we need to emphasis what significance is as if we do not we are handing munition to deletionist and mergist without giving anything to inclusionist. We are effectively saying "screw you" to anyone who wants to create an article that has some secondary sources, the content on them is clearly not trivial. I say this because the part about inclusion criteia does not also include the possibility that the article be able to WP:IAR and be kept for other reasons. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is with this approach is that the difference between "trivial" and "non-trivial" is just too slight. Significant coverage is a superior requirement, in that sources address the subject directly in detail are easily discernable. Coverage which is not direct or detailed is usually insufficient to use in an article without being supplemented with orginal research or synthesis. In any case, if a topic is not the subject of coverage that is direct and in detail, how can you claim it has been noted at all? What is the point of non-trivial coverage if the subject matter is being addressed in this way? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's why I think it's wrong. Your trying to over-compensate for the marginial difference between trivial and minor to just shift it over to the other extreme completely bypassing the middle ground of moderate. As to claiming if it is notable, if almost every reliable sources continually mention some element, but do not necessarily go into detail due to the way their article, interview, show, etc. is structured, its hard to say the element is unnotable since so many RSes seem to want to mention it. This is where I say a multitude of non-trivial sources, aka those that use minor coverage that is above trivial. We define trivial by consensus as what is trivial for one source may be signfigiant for another one. I do agree it needs to be covered directly, but the level of detail can vary, but does need to go beyond the basic facts of its existance in the narrative. 陣 内 Jinnai 09:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing extreme about being clear, which is why the requirement for "significant" coverage is important when it comes to resolving disputes. If almost every reliable sources continually mention some element, that does not mean they are notable. A mulitude of trivial mentions is not a substitute for coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail; the coverage has to be focused. If there is no focus, then it is difficult to ascertain wether the source is addressing a notable topic, or whether it is addressing a non-notable only in passsing. Perhaps the only way to resolve this issue is to draft an RFC on the issue. I will open copy this thread to WP:FICT and we discuss the wording for an RFC to get some feedback from other editors. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, your saying if a source isn't signifigant, it's trivial and that is far from the case. Even discussions on WT:N have said their is a middle ground between trivial and significant. I did not say "trivial" i said "minor" minor =/= trivial. And a lot of coverage from different sources that mention the subject directly beyond stating "it exists" essentially can be and should be considered a replacement. The breadth of the coverage does not denote focus; in fact the longer it goes on the more inherient inclantion for a lack of focus on a subject, especially when the element is not the exclusive topic.
 * As to an RFC, I'm not opposed to it, although I'm wondering if it should go in WP:FICT or WP:N or both. 陣 内 Jinnai 06:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC
I have added an RFC to the discussion at WT:FICT. I have used your agruements to describe the issue, and acknowledge that they are valid points that merit serious discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I may not have time to respond today, but should tomorrow. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we should post this on a few boards? I don't want to canvas, but I think as this seems to be of the few main sticking points a broader opinion is needed from more of the community. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

clarification please?
A clarifying question is waiting for you at Wikipedia talk:Plot-only description of fictional works. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me. I have added my ideas. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot-only description of fictional works
Could you fix the third paragraph of Rationale? It doesn't make grammatical sense currently. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit didn't really help to clarify what you mean. I've attempted to interpret what you were trying to say and rewrote the paragraph. Please see if I interpreted you right and correct me if I got it wrong. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks good. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

hi gavin, i know you're busy but....
i was hoping to get some feedback from you. with your work at WP:FICT i trust that you understand our general guidelines and policies quite well. I am currently in a disagreement with a couple of other users over the article Blastoise. After creating the article it quickly went to AFD where it hardly garnered consensus either way. The nominating editor was encouraged to discuss a merge, which was started here. In short, I feel i have statisfied the third-party significant coverage requirement for inclusion, but i am still met with opposition. I understand we are on slightly different sides of "the debate" but you at least make cogent points and understand WP:CON, so i'd just like your opinion. please just leave your comment here, i do not intend to draw attention to this discussion, and worry that someone might view it as canvassing or the like. --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC) The sourcing problems manifest themselves in the trivial nature of the coverage, which is limited to describing which products Blastoise is a part of. None of the sources confirm that Satoshi Tajiri is in fact the charactor's creator, and the article does not say when, where, why nor how the character was developed, nor does the article explain what is the origin of the anglicized name Blastoise itself. In order to really understand what this character is about, I would have to read the article Pokémon itself in order to be able to put the subject in real world context. Apologies if this criticism is so negative, but my honest opinion is that merger is more advisable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC) As Articoker said in the AFD, gameguide materials that discuss the attributes of Blastoise in an in-universe style are different from critical discussion that you would expect from a reliable secondary source. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC) In this context, your clever analogy with a zoologist going out and measuring a lion then writing the length, and a person levelling up Wartortle is slightly misleading. A better analogy would be car salesman measuring a car on his lot - neither the salesman, nor the subject he is writing about would be independent of the franchise he works for. On the one hand, it is good that you have found or summarised the sources so the coverage is not presented from a wholly in universe perspective, but the amount of real world coverage is, you must admit, slight to say the least. About the only claim to notability is that Blastoise appears on the cover of Pokémon Blue, but the key point here is that we don't know why it was chosen instead of another character. It is hard claim notability for a character independently from the game simply because box cover is about the game, not about Blastoise per se. I would argue that this is an example of a element of fiction which is not independently notable from the work of fiction (the video game in this instance) in which it features. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your request, I have read the article Blastoise, which has serveral issues which suggest to me that merger is probably appropriate in this case. The reason for my view is the lack of notability of the subject matter: Blastoise has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the Pokémon franchise. Most of the sources under the control of the owners of the franchise, Nintendo, either directly from its own press office, or slightly less directly through its publicity for Gameboy or the spinoff animated series from 4Kids Entertainment.
 * no worries on the negativity... i assumed your position before i even approached you, but thought i could get more constructive dialogue out of you in order to further the discussions with the other editors who i am engaged with. I am curious if you read the AFD discussion which i linked to above, which discussed sources in greater detail, because you seemed to have missed the third-party ones - here's the diff which summarized the sources.  I'd like to discuss ways to improve the article in your eyes further but first feel that this sourcing issue needs to be addressed. --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look at all the sources. The third party sources, such as
 * Cooper: Blastoise, the shellfish Pokémon: The last evolution of Squirtle (Beckett Pokémon Unofficial Collector),
 * MacDonald: Pokémon Trainer's Guide (Sandwich Islands Publishing) and
 * Shlesinger: How to Become a Pokémon Master (St. Martin's Paperbacks)
 * cannot be classed as being independent from Ninetendo. A Pokémon gameguide is not independent of the primary work, even if it is published by a reliable source, becasue what they are doing is basically regurgitating the original source - see Warner Bros. and JK Rowling vs. RDR Books. I suspect that publications based purely on Ninetendo products such as those cited would only have been published under licence from Ninetendo in any case, so in this context they are primary, rather than a secondary source in the context of your article.
 * I think it may be difficult to understand what these works actually are without seeing them fisthand. Artichoker's comments were inaccurate descriptions of the sources (and i mentioned so), in that they were not discussing anything in-universe.
 * Blastoise was being handled as a character in multiple media formats (Cooper) with comments about how well-known it is and why, strategies for using it in the video games, the noticeable lack of on-air time in the anime, and it's portrayal throughout different iterations of the trading card game.
 * In the case of MacDonald, I would agree a large amount could be construed as "regurgitation", but i fail to see the difference between a zoologist going out and measuring a lion then writing the length, and a person levelling up Wartortle at lvl. 25, then writing down that number. It's still a form of research, they are both just not very analytical. The macdonald ref goes on to make some recommendations and provide some guidance on how to complete the game.
 * Shlesinger provides even more opinions and commentary on the game, and how to complete it.
 * Your assumption that all these refs are somehow still tied to Nintendo is understandably wrong. While many guides exist which carry their offical seal (specifically Prima guides), these three sources are unique in that they are not tied to nintendo (i took some pains to ensure this).  The Cooper ref even says unofficial.  So my question to you is assuming that one could guarantee the one step removed from nintendo, and that these sources are not talking about Pokemon as if they were real (which is what in-universe means anyways), but as characters in a game, what other requirements are you asking of me? --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 11:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In some ways, I see what you mean that a closer examination of the sources might result in your view that the sources provide evidence of notability, but I still have doubts. Without being able to look at the copyright notices that come with each publication, I cannot provide evidence that their content is published under licence from Ninetendo or its affliates, but the title of the publications does suggest they are very closely affiliated with the Pokémon franchise, rather than being independent. Remember, the term "unofficial" may only be used in the sense that the publication has been published independently, even though its purpose is to fit within or expand apon the Pokémon franchise, which would indicate very close affiliation.
 * and of course independent notability is the concept that has so many people hung up at WP:FICT... while we can all agree that a subject for an article must have been discussed in a significant amount by someone not closely affiliated to the subject in order to be deemed "notable", we cannot agree on whether the content of that discussion should be considered or with what limits. I still prefer my analogy because let's say I am a relatively prolific writer on the topic of video games (like Schlesinger)), assuming i'm not in the pocket of all the parent companies i write these books about (and i have given no reason for you to assume i am), the only thing i am trying to sell is my book, in the same way a journalist is trying to sell their paper, or a researcher get their grant. at least we distilled the arguement to my earlier summation, regardless of other debatable points. if the two sides could work on agreeing to those limits for discussion, it might help some headaches... however i would be surprised if the people who feel the content in sources shouldn't be an issue were okay with setting strict limits after already making a concession.  it seems the stricter side feels the limits should be set by WP:NOT (i.e. is the content instructional? a directory?), however there exists a disconnect with certain biographical articles (athletes, particularly) and other types of content we do draw on as sources (i.e. newspapers, speculation, scientific journals, soapboxes of opposing sides). --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * oh, and a quick note, the article wasn't trying to establish Blastoise's notability based on the fact it was on the cover of the one of the first games, Blastoise is notable because it is one of the best known characters (a sourced claim), it is because he was on the cover that he is so well known (also sourced). --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Childish pranks
Seriously what you said angers me greatly. Albert is is one of the nicest and maturest editors on here who made an honest effort to try to improve our content. I am completely shocked by what you said and find your statement utterly unacceptable. I have created over 40 good articles on wikipedia and over 5 featured articles and likewise I certainly never vandalise wikipedia or have bad intentions I go out of my way to help improve this site. You really need to reconsider how you refer to people on this site because you are likely to turn away good decent honest editors with that kind of attitude. All of the "pranks" he played were new articles intended to transfer referenced material from German wikipedia and to really improve coverage in the long run. Exactly the oppositie of what you said. What you said is the last thing I'd expect from a supposed university graduate. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so shallow. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What you refer to as "an honest effort to try to improve our content" is in effect, recklessness. When using automative tools of such a scale, there is a duty of care to ensure that the process of article creation meets Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. It seems that AlbertHerring was asleep in this regard, or blind to the consequences of his actions, but that cannot be used as an excuse in this case where his actions were pre-meditated on such a large scale. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You've caused somebody to leave wikipedia. Your actions are unforgiveable whether you thought his editing was bad or not. Even real vandals rarely get spoken to like that, your comments were malicious and cruel. He is a great guy who loves this website and wants it to reach its potential as much as anybody, you don't even know him. You owe him a big apology, nobody deserves to be spoken to like that. '"Reckless"' and attention seeker are the very last words I'd use to describe him as a person, he is generally the most calmly minded, quietest people around on here. Please read Assume good faith because what you said is so far from the truth of why he help create new articles than is possible. Mos tof us he are to build an encyclopedia of the highest quality with a great deal of coverage. I don't care what anybody has done but you do not say things which cause an honest and active editor to leave this site. We need everybody, however moronic who is interested in building content on here. Do the decent thing and email him an apology whether you thought his creating articles by AWB was a very bad idea or not. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Gavin, we don't block people for making good faith errors - however big an error that may be. Anything here can be undone so it really isn't a big deal. It looks like Albert has now semi-retired - a great shame indeed. Calling for his head on a plate was a poor move, and shows a lack of comrephension on your part of both the nature of the wikipedia community and concept, and of the blocking policy. Pedro : Chat  15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except this is not good faith, this spamming of articles was premeditated. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And premeditated creation of articles is not a good faith move for what reason exactly? It's why we're here. You (and I) may have issues with the way it was done but calling for editors to be blocked is dangerous turf. Also you may want to re-read WP:SPAM and WP:AGF. Pedro : Chat  15:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it was not done in good faith was that the articles do not comply with Wikipedia's content polices. If he had taken care to ensure that they did, we would not have this problem. Many other editors at Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe clearly are indicating that the results of his actions should be deleted for precisely this reason. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People say "read WP:AGF" so often it loses it's meaning, kind of like "have a nice day". But in this case, I suggest you actually follow Pedro's advice. What you describe has absolutely nothing to do with being "done in good faith".  Gavin, if you're open to some unsolicited advice: it is usually best to wait until you aren't angry before posting to ANI.  Your rather over-the-top comment was unhelpful, and it appears pretty hurtful to a valued contributor.  Your attribution of bad faith in the face of massive evidence to the contrary is baffling. I suspect, based on all your other contributions here, that you're wise enough that you would not have said that if you had spent some time thinking about it first. It's not my place to tell you what to do, but I'll gently suggest that if I were in your shoes, I'd probably drop by Albert's talk page with an apology. People are allowed to make mistakes without calls for their heads on platters. Don't be backed into a corner defending something you said in the heat of the moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Deleting the articles and blocking the creator are two very separate things. Repeatedly calling this a "stunt" on ANI is starting to border on personal attack. At least Albert stopped after we told him to; you have yet to understand why your behavior is disruptive. Tan   &#124;   39  16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Gavin, why would he need to blocked anyway when he has apologised for the perceived error and said "I definately won't do that again"??? If the editor persists in making errors and refuses to stop doing it, then you report him for abuse of the tools. A small difference. Now if Albert had continued to generate similar stubs during this AFD and refused to reply then you block him. Man. The moment Lara notified him he said he "didn't realise it was causing a problem" and said he would not generate anymore. The guy even voted to speedy delete the stubs. What more can you ask for? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 16:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here after reading the ANI thread and I wanted to let you know just how hurtful and meanspirited you are coming across as. Your attitude and attacks have probably caused the loss of an excellent contributor. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to Blofeld, I don't think saying sorry should be a "get out of jail free" card. There is a clear duty of care to use automated tools appropriately - they can be used like a dumper truck, but only if you tip rubbish into your own garden, not mine. Its the same in the real world - check out Donoghue v Stevenson for a case which is analogous to this. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep linking to law-related articles? Wikipedia is not a court. Administrators have no legal obligation to use their tools appropriately; editors have even less legal obligation, if that's possible. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Tan   &#124;   39  16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Donoghue v Stevenson provides a clear analogy to the current situation. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has zero analogy to the current situation. I'm going to bow out of this discussion; I highly recommend dropping this from any venue but this page. Tan   &#124;   39  16:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'd also like to put in my two-pence. Gavin, your comments were mean-spirited and unneeded. The situation was already under control before you waded in with that ridiculous demand. Albert was acting in good faith in doing this, had apologized and accepted the articles needed deleting before you demanded he was blocked. You should apologize to him, especially since he's apparently semi-retired because of this disgusting harrassment. Skinny87 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, I don't know what your problem is, but your last comment on the archived ANI thread (you seriously need to take a moment to read the template) show's a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLOCK. Also, your continued disruption was completely unnecessary. Step away from matters that don't concern you if you aren't able to contribute anything of value. Lara 18:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because there have been no valid counter arguements to my proposal. I made some valid points, but if you disagree, you just have to say so and why. In my view, your bald assertion that blocking AlbertHerring is absurd is hard to understand, as no reason has been given - perhaps you like the editor, but are just afraid to say so. You can block me if you wish, but again, without a valid reason, I don't understand why that could be justified, other than dislike. You chose to abruptly cut the discussions at WP:ANI by archiving them, but doing so just because you don't like what I say is, from my standpoint at least, is supressing healthy dialogue. Wikipedia is not a court of law, but that should not stop us discussing this event and their consequences without getting personal. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No reasons have been given?! That's the richest thing I've heard all day, thank you for the hearty laugh. Tan   &#124;   39  19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, bald assertions count for nothing. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The debate at ANI gained consensus that your proposal was wrong. Further your suggestion was outside of the block policy. You misunderstand, deeply, that the onus is on YOU to provide reasons for a block - ones that are within policy. You have not done so. Clearly you misunderstand a number of essentials here. Please take the opportunity to review our policies. No one will block you for voicing an opinon but please consider your actions are now fast becoming more disruptive than the actions you complained about. As for your comment that this should not be personal look to your own edits and comments above Gavin. Pedro : Chat  20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge tat can't change consensus, but I have every right to make good arguments that might influence it, or perhaps influence future action against the spamming of articles. In my view, my Yellow Pages analogy has its merits, and is not disruptive in any way. I think you have to seperate disruption (sabotage) from dialogue (proposal & discussion): just because you disagree with me, does not invalidate my arguements. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what invalidates your arguments is you are wrong. You spend much time linking to various pages on a legal practice / precednt / onus, and creating arguments and analogies, but you have not yet had the courtesy (or rather you lack the understanding) to link to a Wikipedia Policy defending your call for action - because there isn't one. Gavin, there are times (very often on Wikipedia I find) when it is easier to back down that continue to argue - and it is painful when you believe you are right - however you need to recongise you simply are not right in this instance. Sorry to be blunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 July 2009
 * Well if you think what AlbertHerring did was right, why have other editors at Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe clearly indicated that the results of his actions should be deleted? Your arguement makes no sense to me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of us are saying what he did was right. We're saying there's no reason to block him. Blocks are preventative, and AlbertHerring stated unequivocably that he will not do this again. It's odd how you can't understand this - you want him blocked, regardless of whether or not it will happen again. Blocks are not punative. Period, end of story. Wikipedia policy states this. Tan   &#124;   39  23:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOCK says:


 * A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely, i.e. bots operating without approval or outside their approval.


 * I think you will find my understanding is very clear on this matter. Whether blocks are punative or not is just your opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I must be misinterpreting the part of WP:BLOCK where, in bold text in a green box, it says, "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." Tan  &#124;   39  23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Precisely, that is what is needed in this case. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you keep out of ANI in the future Gavin. Whilst you work here is appreciated it's obvoius you haven't got anything like enough clue about the back end stuff. Again, please re-read our policies linked above, but more importantly try to understand them - and that admins work to the principles and not the letter of them. Happy editing. Pedro : Chat  19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as this thread clearly demonstrates that I do know what I am talking about. We just have divergent views on this issue, and I think it presumtpious for you suggest my views are the result of a lack of understanding. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 01:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Pedro : Chat  20:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

redux
The ANI thread was closed, so I'll reply here,


 * It's definitely a village pump issue. What you are looking for is some kind of restriction on semi-automated article creation. ANI can't do that. As I suggested at ANI, it may be worthwhile to propose that we require BRFA if someone is planning on creating more than say, 25 or 50 articles in a semi-automated manner. –xenotalk 14:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, it is more straight foward to view the issue of article spamming for what it is - a behavioural problem. As I say in my analogy at WP:ANI, this sort of behaviour would be viewed as a symptom of impending mental breakdown in the real-world. There is no policy or guideline that supports the creation of stubs, so one has to ask, what is it that is driving editors to spam articles? Having a licencing system for spamming articles is not solution to a problem that should not be allowed to happen in the first place. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Gwen already asked you to not make such statements (calling into question an editors' mental state) which can be interpreted as a personal attack.
 * As for your comment 'there is no policy or guideline that supports the creation of stubs' - there is also no guideline that prohibits it. I think that is why the VPP is your best avenue here to determine community consensus on this matter. You may also consider a sub-paged-style RFC. Hasn't there been something like this already, wrt Blofield's activities? –xenotalk 14:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My real concern here is that the spamming of articles is being used by editors with an agenda to obtain personal aggrandisement, push a point of view, or overwhealm one or more of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines by creating articles of a particular type or subject matter. I think you have made a big mistake by not acting, becuase in the long run, Wikipedia will pick up the tab for these editors misbehaviour, which you have, in a way, rewarded by not acting to stop it. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is neither a behavioural issue nor a spamming issue, it's a content issue (you don't agree with the content) and maybe a tool issue on the side. To get what you want, policy would need to be changed and ANI isn't meant for that. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the analogy about working in an office is a good one: if I was to engage in such behaviour at the offices of a paper based encyclopedia, I would get the sack, or sent home on sick leave, not because I was not adhereing to content policy, but because I was engaging in behaviour that is not normal. We do need to have a reality check here - there is a behavioural aspect to this. Getting back to Wikipedia, the question is still outstanding: just because there is no rule about spamming articles, why do it in the first place? I think the motivation behind the spamming of stubs is at least questionable. I know that it takes different strokes from different folks to edit an online publication, but this is activity on a level that goes off the normal scale, and there is something odd about this.
 * You are asking administrators to legislate from the bench, as it were. We don't do that. The motives of someone creating many stub articles isn't really relevant. Tend to the VPP thread, or create a subpage-style RFC to gather community opinions on this, and then we can write some guideline as to this activity. –xenotalk 14:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. If there is consensus for what you want to happen, Gavin, listen to xeno, there are ways to gather it. I do think you're mistaking inclusionist behaviour for daftness, either way you'll get more or less nowhere by calling other editors crazy. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not asking you legislate from the bench, I am asking you to act on the resources at your disposal: see the segment from WP:BLOCK above. Its down to you: to act now, or wait until this serious situation spirals out of control. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're asking us to block a user who has created articles in good faith via AWB, a method not specifically prohibited by policies or guidelines. I'll have to decline; again, with the suggestion you gather community input on this in a wider venue. –xenotalk 15:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As my analogy suggests, I don't think creating hundreds of articles that don't comply with Wikipedia's content polices is constructive, and the moviation behind such actions is questionable in both the real world and in Wikipedia. I don't think a reckeless disregard for Wikipedia's content polices on such a scale can be described as having been carried out in good faith. Sure we all make mistakes, but to systemmatically create articles which contravene WP:NOT on such a scale signifies to me that something is very wrong. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why anyone is still trying to argue with this guy; did you see the initial thread with me and Pedro? Logic has no influence on this page. I suggest Zeno and Gwen drop it. Tan   &#124;   39  15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are not necessary here. If you disagree with me, just say so and if you have intelligent point to make, say why you disagree. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I read WP:NOT and I don't see how it applies. I don't really have much more to say. I will follow the VPP thread. Best regards, –xenotalk 15:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It applies in the sense that Wikipedia is not a directory of species - that is the remit of Wikispecies. The one line stubs, such as Bulbophyllum abbreviatum are little more than directory entires. The provide no evidence of notability, so there is no rationale for their inclusion as standalone articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That line of argument doesn't appear in the linked page. I've created a subsection of your VPP thread: Village pump (policy). –xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Enron
I never at any time Vandalized it, The M.Yass Scandal did actually occur. Two Wholesale energy traders within Enron in the Mid 90's were gambling in the highly risky oil market and when they were loosing Enron's entire reserve funds while trying to make themselves rich, they put on the financial flow charts a connection to a Lebanonese beneficiary named M.Yass. Go watch the Movie Enron, Smartest guys in the Room and you will see i did not lie and I fight against Vandalism in Articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezashah4 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 July 2009
 * I have reason to believe that the content you added to the article Enron scandal was made up by you. I have seen the film too and have the book. But what you have written in no way approximates what appears in the movie Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. You will have to back your opinion on the matter with reliable secondary sources which actually make these claims. I am not saying that you lie, I would just like to know what was actually said because any accusations about living persons (named or unnamed) needs to be backed up citations. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Enron scandal
You've put a lot of work into this article, and I was wondering if you wanted the article to reach GA. I don't know the full details of the scandal (didn't catch the documentary or any books), but we covered it in quite a few accounting classes and I kept up with it in the news. I just saw your request for improving the article recently, and I'd be willing to help improve the article so that the task force can get another GA under its belt (plus the article deserves to be assessed higher). If you want to shoot for at least GA, let me know and I'll help with some of the cleanup and referencing issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, any assistance would be warmly welcomed. The article has lots of citations, but the references need tiding up. I hope to add some more content, or make the existing content clearer, so I think getting this article to Good Article status is achievable. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take a look at the article later today. For The New York Times citations, I think it would be best to convert them to online citations as the newspaper has all of the articles available online. It will also be a good idea to try and throw some other newspapers/journals in there as well so there are no arguments that the newspaper is the only source for many areas. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider that reliable sources like the New York Times and Reuters tend to move the stories around (thus breaking the links) or may not last for ever. Using "cached" links via Google might be more long lasting, although Google might not last for ever, either. I am assuming you know what I am talking about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, but we should at least include the links for now as they work fine and will be helpful to readers who don't have access to old copies of papers or article databases. The New York Times has rearranged the location of their links in the past, but it only created redirects, not dead links. As long as an article is periodically checked for dead links, there shouldn't be a problem. Plus, the Internet Archive can be a big help for saving links. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I went through the article and did a brief copyedit. I've also cleaned up the majority of the citations, there are less than ten left that I'll fix later today. For the Times references, what do the assorted numbers/letters stand for? Is it section, page, column, etc.? I kept all of them for the citations in case they are still useful. One area that the article may need expanding on is the help that employees/shareholders received at the conclusion of the trials. I believe there was some federal assistance, but I need to look into that (you probably know better than I do). I added The Smartest Guys in the Room to the top of my Blockbuster queue, so I should be getting that later this week. You have done a great job with this article so far, as I was able to keep up with the details of the events and found the variety and number of citations helpful. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what system is being used in the Times references - maybe they refer to the printed version of the NYT? The addition of the internet links may have come later. I highly recomend the movie Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, and I have just bought the the book and maybe I can add some more references from it if you think there are parts of the film worth mentioning. It does help to read this article before viewing the film, but what is impressive about the film is you get a better understanding of teh personalities involved: Lay, Skilling and Fastow, even though the financial structures they created are hard to understand by viewing a movie alone. I was not aware of any federal help being given to employees/shareholders, but perhaps you can find out more? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the details from the sources, since the online version is available. The sources are all formatted properly (I think) and I'll probably add additional citations after watching the documentary. Hopefully I'm not mixing the ending of Fun with Dick and Jane with actual events, so I'll try and find some details on the shareholders/employees. I'd say some things that need to be expanded on is the lead, the aftermath section, and maybe merging/expanding on some of the briefer paragraphs. I'll also try and find some more free images for the article if possible. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I also read the book this weekend (got it at the library) and added additional details to the article. I'm probably going to add some other sources in the next few days and then do some final copyediting. Feel free to reword anything or rearrange the headings. This article has the possibility of going to FAC at some point, but the book sources will need to be pursued first, then a peer review, and multiple copyedits. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been nominated at GAN. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this
Responding to several comments over at the NOT talk page, based on the idea of "unencyclopedic" content, including yours, I put up a new section, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not on that talk page. Much of the "unencyclopedic" argument is a pet peeve of mine. It's a bit of a tangent to the main discussion, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term "unencyclopedic" can be misussed and is often cited as a reason for article deletion, sometimes to discuse personal opinion (such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT). But in the context of Wikipedia, whether a topic is encyclopedic is determined by its notability; if a topic fails WP:N, then it is likely to fail WP:NOT and vice-versa. Sometimes the term "unencyclopedic" is used against the content of an article, but I think this is just another way of saying that undue weight has been given to relatively trivial aspects of a topic's subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPP
I just read your little speel on WP:VPP. You should be ashamed of yourself, Gavin. -- Ned Scott 09:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which one? I am not sure I understand you. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi-auto article creation, but forget it. You feeling ashamed about something wouldn't help. I'd rather you'd understand other people a little better. Just count me in as another person who thinks "that's a fucked up attitude to have". -- Ned Scott 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. I don't think the automated creation of hundreds of stubs is a good idea without some care being paid to quality, and many editors agree with me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

TV Schedules
So done. I agree with your point, it's just I was trying to do it piecemeal. Oh well; In for a penny, in for a pound I suppose. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are of course free to just revert it all the way back. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have opened up a new section at WT:NOT in support of your amendment. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: OCLC
It benefits Wikipedia (by making our articles more complete) and readers who want to easily find books at their local library; I suppose OCLC might see a traffic increase, but their a non-profit, so...; It's a standard field in the book infobox, I'm just filling it in in an automated fashion. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you on your talk page. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do believe we had a misunderstanding. When you said "This website is not a library catalogue is it?", I had thought you were rhetorically referring to Wikipedia, not OCLC/WorldCat. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noted your post at ANI. Note also the discussion at the Village Pump earlier today. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any further calls for Cybercobra or the bot to be blocked, and you'll be the one blocked for disruption, per my warning .--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * No conflict of interest. Gavin has been mischaracterizing filling in the OCLC parameter of Infobox book as linkspam, when it's actually the template that's creating the links. I don't particularly care whether it links or not -- I just want him to stop attacking everybody who tells him he's misunderstanding the situation, and to stop repeating his errors in defiance of all the people who have tried to explain the distinction to him.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, what's the subject area I'm supposed to be involved in here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your Administrator review. Obviously my comment did not go down well. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by this - I get the impression you are playing with me like cat plays with a mouse. But the message is clear: Non-admins should not give feedback about SarekOfVulcan even if you invited to do so, just in case you get get blocked. There is nothing I can do about this until my block is lifted. But when it is, I feel duty bound to raise it with your peers, in case arbitrary blocks is something that you do all the time. At least then others will be warned. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Another opinion
I hesitate to say anything, because I'm really not a fan of Gavin's hyperbolic argument style, and it annoys me enough that I'm disinclined to stick my neck out for him. But I've looked at how this unfolded, and it strikes me as a poor block. As I understand it:


 * Administrator review issue is a red herring; you obviously can't get immunity from blocking by quickly criticizing someone on their admin review when they warn you. Let's at least stay on point.
 * The pre-block warning was for lobbying to have Cybercobra blocked; after the warning, Gavin didn't lobby for blocking anymore. If you (Sarek) planned to block him if he simply commented on Cybercobra anymore, you should have said so.
 * Blocks are blunt instruments, and should be used more sparingly than this.
 * If you were tired of hearing Gavin talk about Cybercobra, then stop responding to his comments. It's really poor form to have someone answer Gavin, and then block when he replies. A better solution would have been to simply ignore him after he made the same point for the seventh time, and give him the last word. If people ignore someone, they tend to quickly stop talking.  See WP:SHUN. I can't understand why this isn't more widely used, especially by admins who should demonstrate more restraint than average.
 * When you block someone for reasons they think are unfair, it becomes impossible to explain to them how their behavior was unhelpful; they're too busy being outraged at the block. Going forward, this is going to make it that much harder to get Gavin to change his argumentation style.
 * Admitting a possible mistake and unblocking now will take a lot of steam out of the inevitable ANI thread that's going to follow.
 * Gavin, it would be an excellent step on your part to resolve to drop the Cybercobra issue on ANI (it's dead), and discuss on the template talk page instead.

So, Sarek, please consider an early unblock here, and Gavin please consider dialing down the hyperbole and outrage about 75%. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 75% adjusted. I agree that flogging a dead horse is pointless, but for me the thread is about stopping linkspam by what ever means are deemed appropriate. I think I have been reasonable here: I have made my proposals and objectives explicit, supported them with reasonable arguments, and sought responses from all concerned. If the process of setting out my case has caused disruption or offense, then I appologise now. However, simply brushing me off with a block without addressing my concerns is basically a restiction on dialogue, and little more than a gagging order. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I must put in my tuppenceworth here. I don't think I've ever been on the same side of any discussion as Gavin before (e.g. one of my proudest moments on Wikipedia was responding to this with this), but in this case I don't see how a block can be justified. The reason given for blocking was simply that Gavin had pointed out that an editor is responsible for the result of an edit, and that that applies whether the edit is done in plain text or via a template. How on earth can pointing out such an obvious fact be construed as disruption? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say I support both Phil and Floquenbeam here. I can't see how the evidence provided in the block constitutes attacking other editors. Maybe there's a case for disruption, but even that seems more than a tad iffy when you consider a 31 hour block, and that's not what the block rationale claims anyway. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you're apologized for disruption and offense, I've unblocked you. Bear in mind that I have no problem with you pursuing having the link decoupled at the template level -- that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. Accusing editors of linkspam, on the other hand, has to stop.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is just the point, it is linkspam we are talking about, but perhaps not in the perjorative sense. I don't think the block was warranted at all for this reason, as my concerns are entirely legitimate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If your concerns are "entirely legitimate", how do you explain these diffs?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=317120364&oldid=317117961
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=317211412&oldid=317211109
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=317093509&oldid=317083370
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=316946887&oldid=316944143
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=316521645&oldid=316520439
 * They all pretty much agree that no linkspamming is taking place. Once you get past that, you'll be able to have a productive discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was way past it from the outset. WP:LINKSPAM does say that "There is no hard rule on when this crosses over from being a legitimate attempt to improve the article into being internal spam", and this is the grey area where I am starting from. I think you now agree that it shouldn't be linking to Worldcat, the only difference between us is just that I am trying to articulate why it should not link, and WP:LINKSPAM provides the closest analogous approximation to what is wrong with the template Infobox Book. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that I don't agree that it should link, rather than that I agree it shouldn't. If the template were tweaked so that it only linked to Worldcat in the absence of an ISBN, it sounds like we'd have something we could both live with.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability
I agree with you. I am quite surprised that there are not 10 times as many people commenting on the chaos changing "require" to "should have" invites. I'm still waiting for a good-but-fails-GNG article topic to be listed supporting the change. patsw (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If notability is required by WP:BLP, then that shows notability is a requirement, particularly when writing about contraversial topics. The only alternative is subjective importance, which is a devisive inclusion criteria we could all do without. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "All hope abandon ye who enter here." I think that is there loss, not yours. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Award RFC
I wasn't sure what you meant by Fox News's structure so i put that in. Since i was trying to be as neutral as possible, feel free to edit that and better explain what the difference IYO is from them and say BBC or New York Times. 陣 内 Jinnai 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Secondly, the mention of Fox News is misleading, and is not connected in any way with any of the awards we have discussed. Is there any way you could amend or redraft the wording before proceeding? The confusion about Fox News maybe related to the fact that both they and IGN are owned by the News Corporation. Fox News is considered to be a reliable secondary source, because it is a dedicated news service which publishes its own news stories, and provides attribution to it sources when the content of those stories is not its own. IGN on the other hand is a site dedicated to the promotion of video games and other entertainment, but it publishes both its own and third party promotional content without distinguishing between the two. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 06:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it might have been better (but not necessary) if we had discussed the wording of the RFC first. Kindly note that an award "given" to a fictional character is a type of journalistic or literary trope, not "troupe", and you may wish to amend the RFC accordingly.
 * changed the link and removed Fox News using wording from the above statement. 陣 内 Jinnai 07:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is better. I have added the discussion to the Fiction notice template. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)‎

BAG and bot fastracking
I did not follow all of the links from the discussion about CobraBot and OCLC's. I realize now I should have alerted you to the discussion at BRFA talk. I would like you to follow the discussion. I think CobraBot should be deflagged. The task did not gain community approval, and the wikilawyering its approval is annoying to a degree not prior imaginable. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if CobraBot should be deflagged, but I ageee with you that that the task to link to Wikepedia to the Worldcat was taken to lightly. I also agree thing that everything bots do has the potential to annoy "a degree not prior imaginable", and I am not sure the anyone else understands why. I will follow through the links you have provided tomorrow. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website
A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the previous discussion is anything to go by, I think you will find it very hard to get any traction with the Worldcat supporters and bot operators regarding the issue of responsibility. Some editors are likely to be very hostile to this initiative. I can't help but think that you put yourself in a position analogous to Oliver Twist when he asked for more gruel. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, bot supporters are vicious to me-it's beyond understanding. I'm called names, blocked, stalked, and attacked. And it's my fault: I'm too aggressive, etc., etc. Bad me for acting back and not going away. They don't see a problem with their behavior that could scare editors away!! Thanks for braving the lion's den with your opinion also. --69.226.106.109 (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)