User talk:Ponyo/Archives/September/2010

re: Alexander Lugo
No worries. I'm glad you proposed the article for deletion as it had been unreferenced for over a year and that prompted me to look at it more closely. Even after updating the article briefly and adding those links, I'm not convinced it would survive and AfD, but I wasn't sure a PROD was the way to go now. At least the article is accurate now, so that's a good thing. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PROD and AfD are always my "last resort" in BLP referencing - I was happy to see you jump in. You do really great work here, so I'm happy to cross your path. Cheers, --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 03:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bro
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't lie about what happened in the 2009 NFC Championship Game. The source is within the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.110.18.39 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As another editor has pointed out, the paragraph you are trying to add is full of POV phrasing. Using phrases such as "Tahi will go down in Vikings' infamy" is a judgement and has negative connotations. The information is also somewhat trivial in nature, but if you could find a way to write it in a completely neutral fashion and insert it with a source under the career section, then it would be more likely to be kept. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh  16:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Garcia (chef)
Quality contributions there, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rob! There was plenty of coverage, and I didn't even have to sort through any of the pay-per-view GNews results to find all the info. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Films themselves are the source for it. Google if you don't believe it. By the way, you deleted too many things on Jaclyn A. Smith's page with the excuse of being "puffery" that constitute vandalism. LoveActresses (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not my responsibility to add sources to the material that you add. The onus is on you (see WP:BURDEN). Please also read WP:NOTVAND - removing unsourced promotion, puffery and personal information is expected when working with biographies of living people and is certainly not vandalism. If you would like to continue working on biography articles than you need to read all the relevant policies and guidelines. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when are personal information about her name Jax, that appears on her MySpace page, her height, that appears on IMDb, not relevant for biographies? Height appears in many pages about actors. You should be familiarized with them before deleting things. And why is a description of her fame in "quickly shot Jaclyn to sci-fi stardom, making her a fan favorite of Canadian sci-fi fans from coast-to-coast" something to delete? And "As a result of Jaclyn's Earth Hour effort, Vancouver Coastal Health invited her to join their GreenCare initiative. The strategic priority of the GreenCare programs (EnergyWise, WaterWise, TravelWise, and Zero Waste) is to reduce the environmental impact and ecological footprint of Vancouver Coastal Health. Jaclyn has pledged to continue her efforts to raise awareness about the need for less energy consumption in the future.", "This talented young actress is also a talented singer songwriter and skilled visual artist." and "Jaclyn is represented by Lisa King of King Talent in Vancouver and Toronto." are significant parts of her biography, or is her work as a singer songwriter and visual artist not worth mentioning? LoveActresses (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would simply read the policies that I have linked to you would understand why this information should not appear in the article(s). IMDB and Myspace are not reliable sources. Anything added to the article that is strictly promotional in nature is also contradictory to our guidelines. Once you read the links I've provided and return with a cogent argument as to how the information you are adding is actually 1) relevant and 2) reliably sourced I would be happy to continue the discussion with you. Note that I have brought your edits to the attention of the biographies of living persons noticeboard, so you will likely be receiving additional guidance and information from other editors regarding your edits. You can find my message to the noticeboard here --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to argue. Asking the help of Administrators is, however, a good solution, although seeming a little desperate, but I'd do the same thing. LoveActresses (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not have to be an admin to understand and apply WP:BLP policy - your continued addition of unsourced material is disruptive - please stop and take the time to educate yourself as to why your edits are being reverted. I've provided all the information required to become a productive editor, its up to you whether you will apply it. Should you choose not to, your enthusiasm for editing biography articles will unfortunately not likely end well for you. Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You interpretation of the absract rules has done nothing else than mutilating information needlessly, instead of just accepting what is clearly true or asking for a better basis, as you did on Tatiana von Fürstenberg. But perhaps you're right, this is too uptight for me, I should go door number 2. At least, until there is a door number 3, that is, a future loosening of those guidelines. What if somenone urged a website like IMDb.com with a worldwide importance to become more accurate? LoveActresses (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These are not my interpretations of abstract rules, these are Wikipedia's policies arrived at by consensus. I have said all I am going to say on this matter, here, at BLPN, and finally on your talk page. Good luck to you with your endeavours elsewhere. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Jaap Goudsmit
Thanks for catching that one. I went back to have a look at it at the end of the run, and you'd already taken care of it. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I took an interest in prion diseases at one point in time and that's likely how the article ended up on my watch list. As soon as I saw "Kuru" I knew right away what the link should be. I'm glad my random and eclectic interests came of some use :) --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"The actor's own website is not a reliable source."
How can this be? If you don't believe the very person, who are you going to believe, then? Not to mention there's implicit a potentially difamatory accusation of lying. How can a third party be more reliable than the people themselves? I don't even want to imagine how people make friends and connect with people on such grounds... LoveActresses (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you have yet to read and understand our WP:RS policy. If you have a question on whether a source is reliable you can pose it at the appropriate noticeboard, but if you keep asking questions there that makes it obvious that you haven't bothered to educate yourself despite multiple editors in multiple places pointing you in the right direction, then you'll certainly exhaust the community's good will and patience. Your continued insinuation that Wikipedia requiring independent sources is somehow defamatory is frankly ridiculous - I suggest you stop throwing that accusation around as it is completely without merit. Period.
 * How could I even know you had such a preposterous "rule"? Of course, if I knew you had such definitions I'd have read the "book of instructions" a little better. But since no one would ever imagine that the very people supposedly aren't reliable, I would have never checked the "rules" in the expectation that I'd found such things. So, I never bothered. But it seems like it's not like that. Read better, or think better, you rule follower: I didn't say that wikipedia's requiring of independent sources is defamatory, I said that it's defamatory to claim that people don't tell the truth about themselves and only other people know what's the truth about us. Who knows better or life, ourselves or an "independent source"? And, while at it, if people don't tell the truth about themselves, why should we trust someone else, since it's as easy for someone to hate us and lie about us as it is for us to love ourselves and flatter ourselves. LoveActresses (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying you don't trust a source is in no way defamatory. At all. You would know we had such a "rule" if you had heeded the advice multiple editors have given you at numerous boards over several days. I cannot provide you with any more guidance than I already have. You have been given all the information required to be a positive contributor and have made it very clear that you do not agree with our policies on verifiability. If you would like to try to change our policies you can begin by outlining your desired changes at the village pump and see what others have to say; however this conversation is done. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying you don't trust "a" source is in no way defamatory, but saying you don't trust "the" source when it's in direct first person is. If I told someone I can't trust in anything they say about themselves, what would it be, then? I know about "personal websites" and such, but including people's websites about themselves is just excessive and absurd. I know it's done, I just wanted to make my stand clear anyway. LoveActresses (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinions, as long as said opinions are not reflected in editing that is contrary to Wikipedia's 5 pillars. I really have no interest in continuing this discussion with you here, so if you want to argue that the policies are "excessive and absurd", please take it elsewhere. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 17:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD G10
Hey mate, when you're marking pages for deletion under make sure you blank them at the same time, just in case it takes a while for the page to be deleted. Thanks for helping ouy with NPP :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blame it on editconflictitis - I tried to blank the page, but when I hit 'save page' you had already obliterated it. Next time I'll tag and blank in one go...--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from top
Ponyo objectivity questioned –suggest credentials revocation- do not need consensus to conclude  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.31.254 (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly have no idea how things work here. Care to provide any evidence of my lack of objectivity? Oh, and you cannot declare consensus is not required; it's a fundamental part of Wikipedia editing. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

James Hurst
Hi there. I reverted your turning this into a redirect; hope you don't mind. Nothing there is duplicated at The Scarlet Ibis page. Please discuss it before you do it again! Thanks, Chris (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know; I've replied on the article talk page. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Promotional article creation
Re your message: The PROD process would be the correct process. The articles are not purely promotion. They don't even have any external links, so one couldn't follow the article to look at the comic. Another editor has started the PROD process on the articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)