User talk:Maury Markowitz/Archive Oct 2007

DYK
Daniel Case 15:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Water memory edits
Hi Maury, sort of different way to do the reflist. I don't particularly like the look of it as I feel the combination of Harvard citation and MLA reference cataloging, looks much cleaner and can accommodate the multiple references from one source much better. BTW, look at Alexander Graham Bell, I am trying to get this article ready for a GA submission but it has been the subject of a lot of vandalism of late. Can you protect it from the anon attacks for a few weeks so I can finish my work. FWIW Bzuk 19:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC).


 * School's back in. I've been posting school blocks all day. Happens every year about this time. Fun, joy! Maury 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory
Please go through the Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory article and add the citations where I placed a "citation needed" tag. You just need to add a name to the relevant citations and then use them again where the tag is placed. After that I'll add the article up for peer review and copyedit and then we can see how FA goes.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking over them, it appears you added a tag to the bottom of any para that didn't have a ref. Is that correct? Maury 19:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, If one reference represents multiple paragraphs then use the reference at least once per paragraph and always at the end of the paragraph.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I withdraw my attempt at FA. Would you mind if I revert the article back to a pre-question state? Maury 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest nominating it anyway just to get more input. Or at least putting it through some article peer review process.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is not a bad idea. I did have excellent results on my last peer. Maury 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell
I would still like a couple-three weeks to work on the text of the article rather than intercepting the insipid and juvenile interludes. Keeping the anons at bay for a while would help. IMHO Bzuk 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC).
 * No problem, I'll figure out how to do it right. You sound stressed! Maury 01:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, but the article has been a real struggle as it was laced with revisionist history and has required a great deal of actual research so dealing with the vandalism was more than annoying, it took time away from the heavy hitting. BTW, I'm going to be in TO for an aviation conference October 15- 17. I owe you a beer! FWIW Bzuk 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC).
 * You know, I was just at the Bell museum a year or so ago. I have a couple of images, including one, not terribly good, of a Gnome 7-cylinder rotary. I'll have to dig them up and see what else I took. Maury 01:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Raiders and Gamasutra
Hey Maury. Yeah, the sshots appear to be the ones I had taken them using an emulator, probably as long ago as 1997. I contributed them to Wikipedia a while back. First I heard about the article was when a coworker pointed it out to me (I have an original Star Raiders manual up in my cube as art). Sounds like they pilfered them from wikipedia (or, less likely, from my site directly) without attribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billkendrick (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity
Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Legionnaire in-game.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Legionnaire in-game.png. 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 10:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

List of ski areas and resorts in Canada
A template has been added to the article List of ski areas and resorts in Canada, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. ʍαμ$ʏ5043 17:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

XB-70 Valkyrie
Maury, I agree that this article is worthy of further recognition, however, one thing that jumped out at me is the lack of "traditional" reference sources. With the wealth of material that would be available for a subject of this importance, there must be some specialized books or even general references that can be accessed. I will start making a search for appropriate sources. FWIW Bzuk 13:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

BD-5 Edit war
I tried to stop an edit war, but none of the participants wanted to listen. Take a look since you were actively involved in its revisions, you know what is going on. FWIW Bzuk 07:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC).

Jim Bede BLP issues
I'd like to discuss the problems here. I've clearly stated my concerns with BLP issues and stated why I don't think they're properly sourced. I hope you could take the time to explain your perspective. Thanks for your time. --Ronz 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Asking for proper sourcing of contentious issues is certainly a worthwhile endevour, and I don't mean to dissuade you from that at all. My concern is the "how", not the "why".
 * A casual glance over the History of the page would reveal that I wrote most of the information in question. Had I been asked, I would have been happy to re-find the references. I should point out that the entire article is written from sources I found in my collection of aviation books, or online. I have no personal connection with this story at all. Tracking this stuff down, most of it from the pre-internet era, was by no means easy. In some cases I contacted people via e-mail in an effort to get them to back up their claims.
 * When questioning statements like this, you need to try as hard as possible to find out where they came from. It's one thing to rollback claiming BLP on an anon edit that added "this dude is s0 gay!". It's another thing entirely another to do it to statements that I'm sure even you were not really sure about. Being contentious is not reason for removal, even if that's what the page says, being contentious and wrong is what we're trying to get at. The rules in BLP and others are a last resort to use when the editor in question cannot provide anything other than personal opinion. And that's where the editor's history comes into play, and I don't see any efforts along those lines.
 * This is where I feel you failed to do as much as you could have. I doubt you have any particular reason to doubt the statements in question, and I'm guessing that you removed them simply because you considered them to be contentious. You did wait a brief period, but failed to track down the original author. References were examined, but apparently skin deep (see below). And when someone who actually owns one of these aircraft expressed his concern, you quoted regs. That last one should be cause for reflection, especially considering that his advice was excellent IMHO.
 * If you have specific issues that you feel the recently added references do not address, post cite-neededs. But please take the time to see if the references actually do say what I said they did. For instance, you mentioned you could not find a reference to Bede in the FTC reference (I think). However, that's because the document index in the PDF is broken. Look up the document name in Google, click "View as HTML" and search in the resulting page -- I believe you will find that it adequetly references the sentence, even though it does not use the term "escrow" directly.
 * Maury 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I wish you had made some attempt to do so earlier.  We obviously have great disagreement on interpretation BLP and V.  As you've pointed out, the solution to many of these problems is to discuss rather than revert. --Ronz 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't like my following wikipedia policies and guidelines in assisting to make articles better. Please note that the BLP notice board is not a forum for personal disputes. --Ronz 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. I wasn't the one getting 3RR warnings from two different admins. Maury 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Removal of content that may violate BLP is specifically exempt from 3RR. I hope you appreciate that I didn't give you a 3RR warning for adding the content back.
 * BTW: You certainly think highly of admins. Probably best to keep such thoughts to yourself as it contradicts what it means to be a admin, not to mention what consensus means. --Ronz 17:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For someone that's complaining about my "personal dispute", you seem to be posting an awful lot on my talk page. If you have cogent arguments to make about the actual topic at hand, please address them to the correct forum (the talk page). I have no interest in debating you on issues that are completely unrelated, like this string of personal insults. Maury 17:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to refactor my comments. I tend to be blunt in my comments and do like to point out appropriate policies and guidelines.
 * You on the other hand entered the discussions with, "don't start quoting wiki regs to me before visiting my userpage." --Ronz 17:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Fine, whatever, please go away. Maury 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)