User talk:Ponyo/Archives/August/2011

Your deletion of 'antenarrative theory' by Dr. David Boje
(NOTE: THIS POST WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE TALK PAGES OF WIKIPEDIA EDITORS HOWCHENG, AND RON RITTMAN, WHO ALSO HAD A HAND IN DELETING THIS WIKIPEDIA ENTRY)

Hi Ponyo

Your deletion of Dr. David Boje's work in quantum physics and storytelling, and his concept of ANTENARRATIVE, is THE single most egregious and unfortunate edit I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Please allow it to be reposted, or re-post it yourself, if that's possible.

I have made my entire career (30+ years) in the storytelling business, from working as the publicist on the original TRON, when I had to explain to the news and entertainment media how a new technology (CGI) was going to change filmmaking forever (I also wrote the book the Art of TRON)...to when I produced the website for the first 'Toy Story' film and subsequently participated fully in the construction of early internet narratives...to today, when I use improvisation and (improvisational) game structure to help our clients generate productive business narratives in networks...

I am an expert in narrative, Ponyo. And I have never read anything more relevant to the future of narrative than Dr. Boje's work. We are, I believe, entering an era akin to the shift that took place at the end of the last century, when machines began giving way to information systems, and Newtonian physics to quantum mechanics. Today, like then, the old narratives are tired, and have sapped of their economic vitality (nowhere more so than in the U.S.). We need 'new story creation' on a unprecendented scale, and this effort will, of necessity, require what I call quantum narratives. These narratives will explore big themes like sustainability, education, religion, politics, leadership, etc. etc, We've spent 20 years building the technical infrastructure and now it's time to use the infrastructure to build the new narratives.

To do this productively (i.e. not chaotically) takes massive re-design in the conceptual, virtual and physical realms in which we dream and bring our dreams to life. Dr. Boje's theory of antenarrative and his other work in quantum physics and storytelling is going to be at the conceptual epicenter of this re-design.

By deleting his work, you are plopping yourself squarely in storytelling's past, when we spent all our time and professional energy battling to establish dominant narratives. The new narratives don't seek dominance, they seek flow. They are not 'owned' in the Disney IP sense of the word; they designed to invite participation. In terms of improvisation, the new games (which are used to generate narrative) are positive sum.

It will take Dr. Boje's work, translated to action in a multitude of different ways, to impose the discipline of design, the cosmos of creativity, on the chaos of information and invention that churns through the networked world in search of meaning (e.g. economic exchange) that can be assigned to it by people, environments and objects.

I urge you to reinstate his work. It's important! To me, it's like you're at editor at a science journal in 1904 who rejected Einstein's 1905 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Objects' that ushered in the new era of physics. That's how important, and potentially transformative, I believe Boje's work is. I don't care whether he self-publishes it or not. It doesn't matter. It is thoroughly documented and accredited academically.

My wife is on the faculty of the School of Cinematic Arts at USC, and I can tell you that Boje's references and the people he cites in his work pop up all the time in the most sophisticated and evolved academic conversations anywhere in the world, around the subjects of multimedia literacy, social media, cinema, games and participatory culture.

BTW, I don't know Dr. Boje, have never met him, don't even know anyone who knows him (although I know a woman who's married to a blacksmith in New Mexico who may know him, as Dr Boje's side business is blacksmithing). I came across his work a little over a month ago on a website published by the University of Bath in the U.K., where he presented his 'The Quantum Physics of Storytelling' paper earlier this year. Only time (or as Boje's paper would call it, 'timespacemattering') will tell, but there's every possibility it could be this century's 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Objects.'

Thanks for your consideration in this urgent matter.

Regards, Mike Bonifer GameChangers [redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.110.254 (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in this message that changes or negates my last comment regarding the subject archived here. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Full stripping unsourced articles
Hi Ponyo, I'd value your thoughts on this issue. I understand that policy supports taking out unverified material from articles. WP:V "Policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." What if an editor decides to challenge everything in a non-BLP article that doesn't have sourcing (which makes up the majority of articles, I imagine). What is to stop them from stripping back all content from hundreds of articles, claiming lack of citations? This is not how it works in practice, it seems - we adds cn tags, section tags etc unless material is glaringly nonsense or garbled. Most of the more minor folk characters and figures of myth have poorly sourced, tagged articles that need work, but could, essentially, have their content deleted. Your thoughts much appreciated. Thanks. Span (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just back from holiday and about to tackle my watchlist. Once I've caught up I'll make sure to try to put together a coherent response for you. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Deleting all unsourced material in a non-BLP article just because the letter of the policy applies would appear rather pointy; common sense should always be used when interpreting the phrase "challenged or likely to be challenged". Without knowing the particulars it is hard to say for sure what the correct response would be in the case you outline above. There's certainly a difference between an editor taking on a single or small handful of articles and cleaning them up, removing unsourced info in the process, and someone who is removing every bit of unsourced info across multiple articles simply because they believe their moves are supported by WP:V. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ponyo. Thanks for your response. I didn't post a link partly because I was interested in the question in general as I realised I didn't have answer to it, but also didn't want to get into a set-to with deleting blokey. I just wanted to understand better. However, this is the article change I'm thinking of. It upset some regular editors on the page, of which I am not one but help was requested on the Literature Project page. There is far from consensus. It seems pointy behaviour. Span (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that appears less than ideal and is taking WP:V to the extreme in my opinion. The only thing I can suggest if a similar situation arises would be to start a Request for Comment to gain additional outside input. If consensus is that the information should be fully or partially restored, and there are no BLP or copyvio issues confounding the issue, then it would be considered disruptive to continue to blank it. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Span (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That mis-Cat'er...
Re: your Warning here I previously filed an SP/I because of the similarity of recent edits between these different IPs. But now looking through the Malek article I see there seem to be some more possibilities... Shearonink (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's definitely some systematic attack going on if sockpuppetry has been excluded. The IPs that popped up for me were User:166.248.40.107, User:166.248.42.184, User:69.118.16.247, and User:67.82.171.39. Right now it appears to be a case of whack-a-mole, unfortunately. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He's baaaaaack...take a look at these contributions. Shearonink (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another admin has rangeblocked a small portion of the 166.248 range in order to try to suppress some of the BLPCAT vandalism, however given the extensive range and apparent meatpuppet actions we're left with simply reverting and blocking as new IPs pop up. In the meantime I've semi-protected Rami Malek for a few weeks as well as it seems to be one of their prime targets. Ping me if anything else pops up. --Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Zukov
User_talk:General_Zukov. I think this was a rather less than optimal use of the block button. Qwyrxian warned rather than block. Zukov hasn't edited since the warning, and a block without intervening edits is fairly unusual. Or were there some revdel'ed edits? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian gave General Zukov a final warning regarding BLP violations for his actions at Talk:Sondra Locke. I did not block Zukov for continuing BLP violations after a final warning, I blocked him for disruptive editing for his completely unacceptable comments at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Spewing religious intolerance such as they did on that talk page is an example of gross incivility and I stand by the block. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  18:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with this block. I was warning more as an editor than an admin, as I'm watching Talk:Sondra Locke, where the defamatory BLP comments came from.  I glanced briefly at the contribution history, saw a few trivial edits (not an obvious vandalism-only account) and warned.  Seeing more details, I have no problem with Ponyo blocking if they believed that allowing Zukov to continue to edit would likely result in more disruption.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gregory Peck's Signature
Dear Ponyo,

How can I put a celebrity's signature into the wikipedia, if you want to can YOU please put the signature of Gregory Peck, I already typed in "Signature =" its all nice and ready for you, thanks bud.

Sincerly, DisneyChicago99

P.S. can you show me if you like how to type in a signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyChicago99 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Ponyo. This editor looks to be a new version of our 99. IP hopper from earlier this year. This editor is following same pattern of a several innocuous edits that seem okay combined with the insertion of unsourced info. Edits have occurred to several of the articles that the IPs focused on. A look at this editors name and userpage shows that they are in Chicago which is where many of the IPs geolocated to. I don't if they are a candidate for mentoring but the previous socking and ignoring of multiple warnings makes it hard for me to AGF. Any suggestions are welcome and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, help transfer file to commons
Dear Ponyo, please, help place this file: File:LCC.jpg to Commons, category:Klaipėda's LCC International University. The problems are, that: Thank You in advance. --Kusurija (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It seems I'm blocked, as I personally can't transfer any file to Commons
 * 2) On Commons other file with the same name really exists, so one need rename it. (e.g. to Klaipėda's LCC International University2007-03-27 or similar)
 * 3) No one of collegues tried help with this problem yet (as to 2011-08-04 17:30 (UTC))
 * This is already being handled here. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility - Reply
Hi there PONYO, VASCO here,

indeed they are getting out of hand. I try my bestest, but it's clearly not good enough, not by a mile. If i do get blocked again (not saying i do not care about solving this problem, i do!), i'll take it like a man.

Attentively, my sincere apologies, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of blocking you Vasco, I just wanted to attempt to get you to tone it down a couple of notches before someone else does. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning
i assume that you'll be warning 216.117.11.39/99.65.186.186/Pyong kong phooey as well regarding the IPTAY article? you realize those are all the same person, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, only the editors insisting on adding this completely unsourced, ridiculous, and dubious trivia to the article. Namely you. You are far far beyond 3 reverts, and if the material is restored then your IP will be blocked to prevent further disruption to the article. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

oh, i see...using more than one account to edit war (far far beyond 3 reverts) is fine as long as you are deleting "trivia". thanks for clearing that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.40 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even cross the line in to trivia - it's just something made-up being added for lullz. Don't restore it. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP Cats - Special:Contributions/170.35.208.206
I was going to send this to AIV, but since I know you've been working on it, I'll wait to see you what you suggest, or do. Thanks! --CutOffTies (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. Let me know if they pop up elsewhere (which is only a matter of time unfortunately). --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was quick - thanks! I will let you know as soon when I see this nuisance again. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a large chunk of their common targets on my watchlist (as you obviously do as well), so they are pretty easy to spot. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Special:Contributions/12.185.48.105 --CutOffTies (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Zapped. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/64.134.96.12. Thanks --CutOffTies (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given them an only warning and will block if they persist. I'm pretty sure this is a different BLPCAT vandal than the Rami Malek/Danny Nucci socks; the Piper Laurie and Tony Goldwyn articles are like honeypots to these various BLPCAT sock groups! <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, they are definitely part of Malek/Nucci sock group - and now blocked. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Colletti
How do I add photo or other links to sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopeishelp (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read our policies with regard to reliable sources and appropriate external links. If you are at all affiliated with Daniel Colletti, you may find it helpful to read our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest as well. I assume you are the same editor as Surfgirl771? <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How was the image copyrighted? How do I upload photos then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopeishelp (talk • contribs) 03:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot upload images that you do not have the explicit rights or permissions to. See Image use policy for additional information. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 04:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for Blocking Martello736-
He made extremely disruptive and derogatory edits referring to both the movie and devoted users. I was fed up. I am extremely thankful.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's understandable to be fed up in such a situation, but it's important to not lash out with with personal attacks. There are venues for reporting such disruptive behaviour (such as WP:AIV). Sometimes it's best to take a deep breath and have a cup of tea until you feel less frustrated. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you for your advice. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Random Encounter (band) disambig.
Please explain why you view this article as SPAM and won't let it be categorized under disambiguation. I want to move on to create/edit content for the Warhammer/40k sections but would like a more clear understanding of what you disagree with before moving on and incorrectly modifying other pages.

In the defense of my actions: Random Encounter (band) is one of a dozen actively touring/performing video game cover bands and has more brand recognition, has played more shows than, appeared at more major conventions than (13 per http://www.animecons.com/guests/bio.shtml/2768/Random_Encounter) and released more albums than the following bands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_NESkimos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaDriver http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitron

Random Encounter has sold thousands of albums internationally (especially in Poland/US) and are fighting to raise accordion awareness, following in the same spirit/dream as Titano's owner Faithe Deffner. http://www.accordions.com/fdeffner/ Random Encounter was also one of five bands involved in the world's first video game themed national tour.

By direct comparison to other uses of the term Random Encounter: The Random Encounter (comic) has a smaller following than the band, no internet presence or reviews, only contains an article stub, has no references to anything except its own website. I am unable to find anything to make it noteworthy but has been left on the disambiguation page. The Random Encounter (film) has only minimal recognition, only cites imdb.com as a reference to the fact that it was indeed filmed, and contained one named actor: Elizabeth Berkley. Reviews are minimal and strongly negative (two stars average on amazon.com) and it never got real distribution beyond digital, but it did contain a named actor so it makes sense to include.

Thank you very much for your help. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtalison (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you completely misunderstand the purpose of a disambiguation page in Wikipedia. The DAB pages are used as a directory of Wikipedia articles that have the same or similar titles. As there is no article titled Random Encounter (band), and no related article that contains significant information on the band, there is no purpose in listing it in the directory. Notability is a completely unrelated topic. If an article titled "Random Encounter (band) is ever created, then it should be listed on the disambiguation page. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. May I join? I believe it is also true that an article may remain red-linked on a DAB page if there are sufficient other articles pointing to it. You click on the red link and then go to "What links here" to find out how many there are. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for including that information George, I had previously explained that in my edit summaries when editing the dab page, and also directed the accounts adding the link to WP:DABRL, but had not reiterated the information in my reply above. In any event, an article has now been created on the band and as such it is now included on the DAB page. All's well that ends well! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but the main DAB page should be Random encounter (disambiguation), with a small e, right? Can you fix it if you agree with me? In Wikidom, I am GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, normally yes, however three of the four entries are proper nouns and are capitalized. I'm not sure if that is enough to override the general naming conventions though. Perhaps you could post a query at the project page to confirm? --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth date Nancy lee grahn
FYI, Intelius gets its data from credit reporting bureaus and the like. 1956 is the date they list, as does ancestry.com, but viewers would need a paid subscription to access that which is why I didn't link it. You are citing capridge.com - a fan-based website! LOL Leave it. It is what it is and she and fans will have to deal with reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.148.108 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ancestry.com and Intelius are not reliable sources for personal information in biography articles (see previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard for example here). I have added an additional published book that states that she was born in 1958. If you would like to begin a discussion regarding the sources supporting the birthdate then I would suggest the article talk page or the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for fixing my heading - I was trying to talk to at least two people at the same time and didn't review my post. (Slaps wrist.) (Ow! too hard...) Peridon (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's hardly worth a wrist slap! I actually have myself convinced that I only make mistakes when I don't preview before saving :)I just happen to have the page on my watchlist (I'm a little concerned about this particular's editors BLP edits and interaction with others, as you've obviously picked up on as well).--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Scott Parker actor
As his publicist, I am requesting that you leave Mr. Parker's page alone. We have no interest in a discussion as to your opinion as to what is or is not appropriate. If you tamper with it again, we will report it to Wikipedia. Publicist01 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No single person owns a Wikipedia article, and it is contrary to Wikpedia policy to edit articles for promotional purposes. As Scott Paker's publicist, it is a direct conflict of interest for you to edit the page unless it is to remove obvious cases of vandalism. I have again restored the article to it's non-promotional, Wikipedia manual of style-compliant, NPOV version. The correct venue to discuss proposed changes to the article or to point out errors within the article is the article talk page, however continued promotional editing on behalf of Scott Parker will in all likelihood lead to block of your account. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Ponyo. In case you don't see it this SPA made a request for protection here Requests_for_page_protection. I added a bit of info. The RFP was then declined. I think (though I could be wrong) that Fastily may have thought that all the IP editing was what Publicist01 was calling vandalism. In fact, that looks more like tag team editing by the same COI/SPA person(s). I don't know if this will be a problem over the next few days, but, we may need to protect the page from the edits that are trying to turn the article into a promotional piece. Just thought I would fill you in before logging off. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, I was offline all of last night. I'm sure the IP and the Publicist account are one and the same, however it's more likely a case of not logging in or understanding how Wikipedia works than an attempt to avoid scrutiny - regardless they will count as the same account as far as edit-warring goes. The more wiki-knowledgeable eyes on the article the better! I'm starting to think that dropping a note at WP:COIN or WP:BLPN may be a good idea if the publicist persists in attempting to use Wikipedia to promote their client. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. Either notice board-or both-sounds like a good idea. You will have seen that Publicist was back since my post last night. The constant claim of vandalism is a bit annoying be we are both used to worse. Hope you have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 14:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left another attempt at explaining why the material is inappropriate on their talk page. Hopefully they will read through the policies and step back from edit-warring. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Advise - Updates to The Cooper Companies wiki page
Hello Jezebel's Ponyobons mots ,

I am writing to you on behalf of The Cooper Companies. It was brought to my attention that we have an existing wiki page that has been created, and I believe it was by you? Can you please tell me the how the page originated? There is some incorrect information on the Cooper wiki page. I have tried to edit the page, but my edits immediately got reverted back and I consequently got blocked by you. Can you please advise? We would like to have accurate and updated information about the company available on the page.

Many thanks! Coo246 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that as an employee or affiliate of The Cooper Companies you have a distinct conflict of interest with regard to the article. Although it is acceptable to remove vandalism from the page, or to make neutrally worded fact-based changes supported by reliable sources, the information you were adding was the same marketing script as is used on the Cooper Companies website; this violates Wikipedia's policies regarding using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and copyright. After multiple warnings on your talk page you continued to blank your company's article are replace it with your own copyright violating material which is what led to the block. If there are pertinent that needs to be updated on the company you should make specific suggestions on the article talk page; an uninvolved and neutral editor will then be able to make the changes on your behalf. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)