User talk:Ponyo/Archives/June/2011

a new version of our BLP vio IP
Hello P Looks like they have come back as this IP which is one that you previously blocked. I'm busy cleaning up their new edits but they may need another time out. Best of luck again tonight - or if you don't get this til after the game I hope it went well. MarnetteD | Talk 20:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Having had a chance to examine their recent edits it looks like they are trying to add other info, that is already in the body of the article, like spouse etc. to the infoboxes as well as their unsourced religion stuff. This may or may not be an attempt to hide their main edit but it does mean that we have to look at little closer at the sum total of things. MarnetteD | Talk 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. It looks like they haven't edited since yesterday, so I'm not sure a block will help now. If they start up again they'll certainly need a longer time out. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking on this. What an ending to last nights game. I was just settling in for a tension filled OT and then it was over! I hope that you have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly was a "blink and you'd miss it" goal. I'll take what I can get though! Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ponyo - Still trying to figure out resolving the Don Sahli Page issue
I did review the links, thank you, and I will contact the owner of that website and see if they can update it with Creative Commons. My concern is the website owner, you can see that they have not updated any of the content since March 23, 2003. Is there another alternative to achieve the page? Can I just resubmit with different content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonSahli (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe I have already responded to this query, but unfortunately I think it may have been archived before you had the opportunity to review my response; as such, I've copied my response below:
 * "Rewriting the article from scratch is of course an option. I would suggest using the article wizard as it will help guide you through the process. As long as you ensure that the material you include is verifiable through the use of reliable sources, and the content is not promotional in nature, it should be fine. You may also want to review the notability criteria for artists to ensure Mr. Sahli meets the criteria for inclusion. Good luck with your article!"--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 01:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

jim jordan
ponyo - why are you deleting jim jordan's actual biography? the current page is more about unsourced politics then jordan's background and resume. trying to fix the page, so what's up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm80 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The text you are attempted to add is a copy of http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/jim_jordan.html and therefore a copyright violation. All information added to biography articles on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced and neutral. In additon, any material added in violation of copyright will be removed immediately. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

ponyo - its not a copyright violation because politico cites that the information they are presenting was not written by them and is is written by contributors to the magazine and is not copywrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smm80 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand Wikipedia's copyright policy, so please review it here. The website carries a copyright tag ("© 2010 Capitol News Company LLC") and requires explicit licensing/permissions to be re-used here. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to submit document twice Kevinqi (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Miss/Sir

Link below is first page, I need develop detail content of our company , named wanhua http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylene_diphenyl_diisocyanate I find that the content of my document is similar with BASF,DOw and so on .but why do you delete my document submit on the website.

the process to submit document is so complex, would you like to share simple way , Thank you very much.Kevinqi (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted as being blatantly promotional in nature, which is against Wikipedia's policies regarding advertising and promotion. Upon further review of the deleted article, it also appears to be a cut and paste copy of information available at the Yantai Wanhua Polyurethanes Co. website (http://www.ytpu.com). Wikipedia has very strict policies with regard to copyright, and any violations are removed on sight. As you mention that you are affiliated with Yantai Wanhua, you should also be aware of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. If you believe that your company meets the notability criteria for organizations, I would suggest adding them to the Requested Articles page available here. If your company is truly notable, an uninvolved and neutral editor will eventually create an article covering the subject. --Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Birdges family
Dear Ponyo,

Im glad that you always warn me, but in this website called NNBD I typed in Jeff Bridges and it said that his religion was a Lutheran so I thought If he was A Lutheran So his father Lloyd Bridges might be a Lutheran, im just a 11 year old kid who really likes history,

So please write me back thanks.

from lenin99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.87.8 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two requirements that need to be met in order to include religious affiliation in biography articles:


 * 1) the inclusion must be supported by a reliable source. Note that NNDB does not qualify as a reliable source for personal information in biography articles; an example of a reliable source would be a newspaper known for its editorial oversight and fact-checking.
 * 2) the subject must have publicly identified with the religion and it needs to be pertinent to their notability.


 * If both criteria are not met, the religious affiliation should not be added to the article. Additional information can be found at WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT. If you are unsure of any of the above, I would suggest you stop adding religions to biography articles altogether. If you would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, there are many areas that could use enthusiastic and helpful editors; the community portal lists many tasks that you may find enjoyable. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IP 99.63.87.8 continues to add unsourced religious cats. Further warning given.Span (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I've blocked the IP, but given their history I expect they will pop up on another one. They are rather persistent, so if you see IPs adding the same info to the same target articles, let me know and I will take a look. Cheers, --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Disney22, IP 99.21.170.110 and Eversman seem obsessed with religious categories - particularly Catholic ones - although following various blocks Eversman has turned his attention elsewhere for now. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One day out of a block and IP 99.63.87.8 adds unsourced religious cats again. Some kind of masochism possibly, unless I'm missing something. Span (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've given them a level 3 warning - I'll reblock if they add any further unsourced religious categories. Note that Jackie Gleason one wasn't too terrible as it is sourced he is buried in a Catholic cemetery, however that could be coincidental. It's likely just a matter of time before they return to adding the categories where they do not apply. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 15:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It continues. To me it's not a degree of terribleness, but that religious categories need sources that show there was religious practice as an adult. Thousands of Catholic cats have been added across biographies added mostly because the person's parents were Catholic. It's a BLP problem. Span (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for an additional two weeks as it is apparent they have no interest in abiding by BLP policy. Thanks for staying on top of this, and please let me know if you see the editor pop up under any other IP addresses in order to get around the block. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Span (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Email
I sent you an email.--Chaser (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded, thanks. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Adam Sessler edit
Where do you suggest I start looking for "reliable sources" of the critisism directed at Adam Sessler's Evo 2010 commentary? --FLStyle (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources page breaks down what is and what is not considered a reliable source. With BLP articles the need for reliable sources becomes paramount, especially when it comes to negative or contentious information. While I appreciate that you attempted to show both sides of the issue, forum thread posts simply do not meet the sourcing criteria for a BLP (from WP:RSOPINION: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material). Have no reputable gaming news sites covered Sessler's commentary? If not, then it likely is not a notable enough incident to be included in an encyclopedia. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  14:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wells Tower
Dear Jezebel'sPonyo, I am Rockfeather, the editor who added a new section to the Wells Tower bio page about an essay that was critical of Tower's work. I did this months ago. Recently, my contribution caught the attention of another editor named Foolzgold who duly deleted it. We went back and forth many times, Foolzgold and I, re-inserting and deleting the section in turns, sometimes a dozen times in a 24-hour period. It got to be quite silly, but I persisted because I believe my contribution is legitimate. A few days ago an editor named Bbb23 got involved and did a good -- and by that I mean honest and fair -- job of refereeing the tit-for-tat, cleaning up language that didn't appear to be neutral, reorganizing sections, etc.

Now you have weighed in on the matter. You have declared that the essay in question is not worthy of inclusion on Tower's Wikipedia bio page. In fact, I see now that you have deleted it outright and warned others not to "undo" your deletion without some sort of consensus on the appropriate "Talk" page. I do not believe your deletion came after the consensus you apparently seek, having joined the conversation only hours ago. But I do agree with your comment on the noticeboard that Paul Maliszewski, the author of the essay, is merely "one individual expressing their personal opinion." I would only ask that you consider the larger question raised by your assessment: what literary criticism is not, in effect, based on personal opinion? Michiko Kakutani's? Edmund White's? Are their judgments based in some empirical form of literary criticism? Of course not. What separates their opinions from those of the casual blogger is that they make well-crafted and sound arguments to support their opinions. And to that end, so does Maliszewski. He is a published author with two books to his credit, and the Brooklyn Rail is not his personal web page. It is a serious literary journal. I would argue that the very occasion of this disagreement is reason enough to include mention of Maliszewski's essay in the "Awards and critical reception" section. After all, is that not what Wikipedia is all about? Encouraging divergent input from the widest possible range of verifiable sources?--Rockfeather (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The criticism has been removed as carrying undue weight under Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy; specifically I removed the information in my role as a Wikipedia administrator based on an OTRS complaint, the section of BLP policy that states "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", as well as agreement at the BLPN noticeboard. Once contentious information is removed from biography articles, it cannot be restored as is without first gaining consensus on the article talk page, which is what I have requested in my edit summary. Please take any further discussion regarding the restoration of the material to the talk page for wider review. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm registering my objection to your deletion of my entry and the reasons given for it. It's not consistent with other Wikipedia articles on other writers. For instance, look at Malcolm Gladwell's page. It has a long section about the critical reception of his work, which includes many direct quotes from many individual critics with divergent opinions. This paragraph stood out, which I will quote here:
 * "Maureen Tkacik and Steven Pinker [21][35] have challenged the integrity of Gladwell's approach. Even while praising Gladwell's attractive writing style and content, Pinker sums up his take on Gladwell as, "a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning", while accusing Gladwell of "cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies" in his book Outliers. Referencing a Gladwell reporting mistake, Pinker criticizes his lack of expertise:[21] "I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong."

Malcom Gladwell is a popular, best-selling writer with a broad following among critics and readers. There can be no doubt that those critical of his work represent the viewpoint of "a tiny minority." Would his Wikipedia page then be improved by removing the above paragraph, according to the rules you cite? Of course not. Removing it would in fact diminish the relevance of Gladwell's Wiki page by turning it into a promotional vehicle for Gladwell's work. And this is precisely what you have done with the Tower article. --Rockfeather (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are completely welcome to object, however the objection needs to be made on the article talk page and consensus for its inclusion needs to be reached on said talk page prior to restoring the info. If you do not agree with specific aspects of Wikipedia's BLP policy, then you are welcome to begin a discussion to change the policy (the WP:WikiProject Biography talk page would be a good place to start if you would like to begin a review of the semantics of the policy). Regardless of the eloquence or verbosity of your replies here, BLP is paramount and consensus is required on the article talk page prior to restoring the contentious criticism; my talk page is not the proper venue for dissection of WP:BLP and its consistent usage across all articles. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems the message is: tough luck, pal. Your decision to erase the material is not up for debate. But any decision to put the material back in is eternally debatable until some fuzzy consensus coalesces, which only you can determine, and after which the decision to restore the material is, still, completely in your hands. Wikipedia: all the trappings of a democratic process with the efficiency of a dictatorship.--Rockfeather (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Wikipedia does not declare itself to be a democracy. The policies and guidelines that you disagree with were developed through years of community editing and discussion; my only activity has been to respond to genuine complaints raised regarding the article and ensuring those community based policies are being upheld in this biography article. I have pointed you to the appropriate talk pages you can use to attempt to affect the changes you desire, for the specific Wells Tower issue the talk page is the correct venue for determining consensus. If you believe the BLP policy itself require review or tweaking you are welcome to raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say Wikipedia was a democracy. I said it has all the trappings of a democracy: the emphasis on compromise and discussion and civility and process with all the attendant rules and guidelines that go with it. It is more like a dreary bureaucracy in some faded East Bloc state. In the end, an administrator or someone with the right set of keys can parachute in, delete information based not on knowledge of the subject but rather on an acute familiarity with bureaucratic protocol, and hand it back to the editorial minion with instructions to come to a consensus. Well, you see chief, we were in the process of coming to a consensus...-Rockfeather (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on BLPN (Wells Tower)
I must tell you that regardless of whether I agree with you, your deft approach in communicating your points effectively and diplomatically is admirable.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the kind words, thank you. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 13:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of Carlos Cesar
Good day Ponyo. The reason for dropping the Category:Portuguese politician category was that article it was already nested within the Category:Azorean politician category (which itself was within the Portuguese politician category). This is in line with the exist Categorization convention about diffusing categories. Also, one other point mentions the fact that "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs". By having a nested article in both the specific and general category seem to me to be redundant based on those two conventions. Mind you, that is my opinion. If you decide to revert the recategorization edit that I made, please provide me with an explanation. I will not likely dispute you on this, since my experience with Wikipedia categorization has been limited to the Wikimedia Commons, which uses the same categorization specificity. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) - hmmmm. Just noticed. I removed the Category:Portuguese politician because it was redundant to Category:Azorean politicians, not Category:Portuguese agnostics, with the same logic explained above. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the dif viewed from the history caused some confusion on my part as to what was being removed as redundant. I of course defer to your much greater knowledge on the subject. Thank you for the explanation. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Humphries
Hi, Please do not edit or erase information from Taylor's page. I am his publicist and all of the information which I have added is verifiable. Thank you, Nicole Voight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole Voight (talk • contribs) 07:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see on your talk page that someone has already pointed you to our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. The edits your are trying to add consists of unsourced or unreliably sourced personal information. Also, links to fansites are removed as they do not meet the requirements listed for external linking. Finally, and very importantly, Wikipedia is a 'wiki', which means that anyone can edit. No single individual owns an article, and no single individual has the right to tell other editors they cannot add or change information in a given article (unless said editor is specifically prohibited from doing so as a result of sanctions). It is strongly suggested that those with a conflict of interest point out any changes and updates that need to be made on the article talk page, and other uninvolved editors can make the changes. What certainly won't be allowed is for a publicist to try to control their client's article and to use it for promotion. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Src
Hi, Yes, no src that Gobbi died, but one IP is in upstate NY, one is in Bronx and an IP in Sardegna just added that to Italian Wiki. So my guess: source will show up in 2-3 days. History2007 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have little doubt that the IPs are posting the information in good faith, however its important that the information is not be added until there are reliable sources confirming his death. If it continues to be a problem the page can be semi-protected until sources emerge to verify the news. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. That was why I did not support the IP edits - because I have no source either. I just checked to see if the IPs were playing us, and unless the 3 of them are together that is unlikely, given that one is on another continent. In any case, there is no need to make a big deal, let us wait 3 days to see if it shows up in the news before we pronounce him dead. By the way, that reminded me of Andy Warhol's near death - he was "pronounced dead" at the hospital after he was shot. Then the ER doctors realized who he was and brought him back to life. So fame paid. His Wiki-page missed that fact, but no big deal. History2007 (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Probabbly time to unprotect Stefano Gobbi. It is all over the Catholic news now. History2007 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly verified now! --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)