User talk:Manway/Archives/2010/May

Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 26
Just wanted to thank you for your diligence on nominating a bunch of redirects. The final four there were already nominated and kept a few weeks prior, so it's definitely worth checking out the page history before nominating anything for XfD. There are a few definitely headed for deletion of sorts, so thanks for working to make the place cleaner! ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 04:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Liturgical colours‎
I'm very sorry about that warning. I mixed up my Internet windows; I intended to give a warning to another user. Sorry and thanks. --Can You Prove That You&#39;re Human (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Warnings to 202.77.91.78
Hi Manway. I noticed you gave a Level 1 warning to 202.77.91.78. The user already received a final warning recently (last week), and therefore, should receive the next level warning. Since there isn't a next level, the user should be reported for vandalism. --Can You Prove That You&#39;re Human (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm using Huggle and it automatically assigns the level of warning. Since the final was last week, and it is an anonymous IP, it goes back to Level 1. --Manway (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Thanks for letting me know. I reported the user, and because of it's long history of abuse, it has been blocked for 6 months. --Can You Prove That You&#39;re Human (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Rollback
Thank you very much! I appreciate advice and I've also been looking for a soft way to break into using Javascript as a side-project for my University course; I'll be sure to check it out. All the best, JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam Birch
So, here you removed information because "Reference provided was to a video that must be purchased to verify WP:BLP claims." Interesting, because the source provided for his drug problems is http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2007/10/11/4567941.html, which isn't a video at all. Your next edit was this, where you removed information because "Reference provided was to a video that must be purchased to verify WP:BLP claims.", which is also incorrect, because if you look at the reference, http://www.rfvideo.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=3561, you'll see a listing of question contained on the video, including "You dated Alexis Laree for a long time, how did you guys meet" and "You dated Christy Hemme for awhile, how soon did it get romantic between the two of you". Try actually looking at the references, before removing information please. Also, could you please point out to me the part in WP:SOURCE or WP:BLP or any other policy that says that videos cannot be used to verify info? I've never heard that before. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's take this a point at a time. A video produced and distributed by an organization that specializes in kayfabe (storylines and acting in professional wrestling, for any interested third parties reading this) cannot be trusted as a reliable source. Neither can a magazine or website devoted to the same organization.


 * BLP states: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." The discussion here is whether a video and magazine/webpage that could or could not be based on kayfabe can be considered a reliable source. In my view it cannot, so I deleted the claim.


 * Verifiability states: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves...Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties." Can you show that these sources have a reputation for checking facts and have editorial oversights? Again, I don't believe it can be done, as this can be based on a storyline in a particular league.


 * Some of the questions asked in the video (which was presented in the listed video reference) did support the claims, but only if you draw inference from them. For instance, let's take one question you listed: "You dated Christy Hemme for awhile, how soon did it get romantic between the two of you?" Now, what if the answer in the video was "You've got to be kidding. Why would I date her?" No reliability or verifiability there.


 * And finally, Verifiablity states: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations..." Exactly what I did. Claims that a person is a drug abuser and overdosed and was hooked on many drugs can be damaging to the person, if not true. And I don't feel it was sourced properly. So I removed it.


 * Tell you what. I'm willing to ask for a third party opinion of this. In fact, I will do so right now. There is a middle ground - we can't both be 100% right or wrong. Will you listen to a disinterested third party regarding both our issues?


 * Thanks for your note. I apologize if I offended you in any way. I'm simply trying to make this project better, while maintaining the high quality and reliability. I'll go ask for that third party right now. Regards. --Manway (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been copied to the article talk page for a Third Opinion. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I've commented at Talk:Adam Birch. While I'm here however, I'd like to apologise. My comments yesterday were very abrupt and a little rude, but I can assure you it was not my intention for them to come off that way. You'd didn't offend me, you just confused me - calling the Slam! Sports reference a "video" blew my mind a little I think. Anyway, sorry once again. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Take care. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 00:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Babelcon
Hello and thank you for the note. In regards to the attendance of the event, as there is no way to verify the claim of the current attendance number for this year as the event was not covered by any newspaper or other print documentation how can you support the current number. I find it odd you demand verification when the current information you support has none. Also the same applies to its Non-profit status, I can find no record of this with the state nor will the staff at Babelcon explain it. If it is truly non-profit it will need to state this, offer the tax code and other information. To keep its non-profit status it’s required to keep 50% of its programming in educational events, not scifi or fantasy based. So I see my comments are correct in this regard. This is a con that will soon be dead in any event; it will be a poster child on how not to do a con.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.39.66 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)