User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 8

WTA Tour
I'd like your opinion: is it appropriate to call an article on the 1971 Virginia Slims Circuit WTA Tour 1971? Regardless of sponsor, the other yearly articles are called WTA Tour YYYY, but I am not sure whether we would say that the 1971 tour can be considered part of WTA Tour history. Your thoughts? Ordinary Person (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, being very unfamiliar with tennis in general, I can't answer your question, but I can suggest some lines of thought:
 * Why do the other articles follow that standard? Are they correct in doing so, and moreover, can that reasoning be applied to this case?
 * As there doesn't seem to be a particular naming guideline that refers to sporting events, or gatherings in general (conventions, expos, national and international summits), the salient guideline may be WP:COMMONNAME. WP:MOSTM may apply, as may WP:NCCORP.
 * Naming conventions (events) may not apply as it seems geared specifically towards events which wouldn't have an "official" title, or where such a title would be a POV-charged term bestowed by the media or a government.
 * You could also look at WP:SAL and WP:SS. The latter may have some advice since, really, the WTA Tour by year articles are spin-offs of particular sections of what would be a greater WTA Tour article.
 * Barring any policy or guideline that seems to directly regulate this, existing consensus rules, which would suggest the generic title. It might be a good idea to later go codify said consensus in a wider-reaching guideline, such as one for sport in general.
 * I think the best route to take is to look at why the other articles are titled in that way. And in any case, I'd suggest redirecting the title you don't use to the one you do since it's surely going to be a valid search term. Let me know if you want me to take a closer look at this though. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Ordinary Person (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ScanSafe logo.svg)
Thanks for uploading File:ScanSafe logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently has been replaced with a newer version of the same logo, though I believe it may be a "web version" of a generic logo. But whatever. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DunBradstreet.svg)
Thanks for uploading File:DunBradstreet.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed- orphaned as a result of vandalism. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Due Diligence
Can I humbly suggest that if you are so inclined you carry the same due diligence to the article in question as to my comments on it. I honestly believe you'd conclude the orginal article was harsh and the current one more neutral. I think you're digging in the wrong place... Amicaveritas (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm going to distance myself from this case as I've found myself incapable of neutrally describing the situation, and thus incapable of helpfully contributing to it. My final suggestion to you is to please, please cease edit warring just because you feel you're "in the right" and because you have an interpretation of the BLP policy which supports that edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive no matter who is right- if you concisely and neutrally discuss why you feel the information is in violation of Wikipedia policy on the appropriate talk page or noticeboard, I can guarantee that your concerns will be given due and thorough consideration by editors highly experienced in handling these sorts of disputes. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mendaliv, the Wise - I learn from you. Good words, good action.--Levalley (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Levalley! :-) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As recorded elsewhere - Thank you for your comments. I now fully understand with regard to "edit warring" (something that was not ever my aim).  I have sought recourse through appropriate channels which has delivered a satisfactory interim result and is leading to appropriate discussion and action.  Duly noted on "my interpretation", won't engage in it again, it was simple frustration at not knowing the correct process being new.  Amicaveritas (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (and I should say following what I believed to be the correct process without results)...Amicaveritas (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear things are rolling along! With regards to that frustration, I'd certainly like to apologize for my contributions to it. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No apology needed but thank you anyway. Amicaveritas (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

3rr
Does the 3rr rule apply to removing unsourced information? Readin (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything that isn't reverting vandalism as defined by WP:VAND, or removing negative unsourced potentially libelous content from a biography of a living person counts towards 3RR. In short, yes it does apply. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well...according to WP:VAND, and edit war is vandalism, and I was trying to use the requirement of a reliable source to stop an edit war (identified as such because the edit warriors were both suspended for a while) between two views that were not sourced, so it sounds like technically I was not guilty of 3RR. I'm glad we've cleared that up. :-) Readin (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm... I believe you've misinterpreted what vandalism is. Vandalism is defined as deliberate efforts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Never is it good faith edits. Edit warring is therefore not defined as vandalism, as it frequently results from a clash of opposing, yet good faith viewpoints. Furthermore, edit warring to end an edit war is like bombing to promote peace, or drinking to promote temperance, and moreover is more likely to protract the edit war you'd hoped to stop. In the future, if you see an edit war that's progressed beyond 3RR, the solution is to warn and/or report the users involved. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

New messages
Can be found at WP:AN for you.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  08:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Best of luck on this- maybe a year-long softblock on that /24 lucasbfr mentions will happen. Apart from that, all I can suggest is to ignore the hassling if you can, maybe work on an abuse report to the ISP if the person in question has clearly crossed the line into criminal harassment. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I look at it, there's a short- to medium-term rangeblock in place. :-) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian A. Vaughan misunderstanding
Mendaliv, if you aren't aware of this already, you may be interested in New contributors' help page, which references a couple of your recent edits. —Bkell (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I hadn't been aware of it. Just the WP:EAR thread that preceded it. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Amiga logo.svg)
Thanks for uploading File:Amiga logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently replaced with a more accurate version. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC
This is to inform you that a RfC for Tennis expert has been started here. Alonsornunez Comments  19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. This is been kinda daunting (setting up a RfC, getting Diff's set up, etc...) Thanks for the help. Alonsornunez  Comments  00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. I've said my piece there. Honestly I'd rather be discussing contributions than contributors, and my hope is that all the hardworking tennis folk can come to a formal agreement on guidelines for tennis-related articles.Ordinary Person (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When you certify the basis of the dispute, you are involved. Your view has therefore been moved and modified. I think stating that you "stepped in and provided commentary and suggestions in this and related disputes, but have only done so from the position of attempting to provide highly informal mediation" is relevant, but I would urge you to remove the contradiction of suggesting you are in some way uninvolved, because it suggests you are not in a position to certify the basis of the dispute - I consider that you are in such a position based on what I've looked at, and currently, without your certification, I would not move this RfC to "approved". Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; chalk it up to my unfamiliarity with RfC/U in general. I've tweaked the first paragraph of my view to reflect this- let me know if you think I need to go farther. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. As another pointer, diffs are usually most effective when they show the difference between from the previous revision. (Compare for example to ). Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the diffs that I think you were pointing out. Thanks again for your help! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis article guidelines discussion
Good move. I've thrown something specific up there to serve as a starting point.Ordinary Person (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just placed my opening suggestion for the format of a highly notable singles tennis player in Wikipedia article form on a personal subpage, at User:Ordinary Person/Tennis article format. As the discussion on tennis articles progesses, please feel free to update that subpage to reflect new consensus or suggestions. At a number of places, I have placed the word "discuss" in bold, to draw attention to particular points that I think we should find agreement on.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Neocron Viarosso hovercab station.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Neocron Viarosso hovercab station.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Image restored. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter
The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EAR templates
The "swtiched template" idea sounds good to me, and AndrewHowse agreed as well on the talk page. Unfortunately, I have no idea whatsoever how template syntax works (other than the basics). How would the switch work, and could we still use the function? Let me know here or just leave a comment on the project talk page. Thanks!  Fl ee tf la me   23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped a reply to this post and AndrewHowse's reply at WT:EAR. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Liu Tao
There is a report at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents that talks in some detail about Liu Tao's editing practices. There seems to be widespread agreement that something should be done, but so far it seems the administrators are not taking an interest. Are you an administrator and is this something you can look into? I ask you specifically because I noticed you put a warning on his talk page. Readin (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not an administrator, and I'm afraid that I don't have the time or inclination to really look into this case at this time, especially as it obviously involves reading a significant number of ANI posts and related posts. I'm really only on to check my messages and put up replies, and I don't expect to be able around much in the near future. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Help, Continued
Just FYI, you will recall that a person who will remain unnamed (unless you click here) wrote: I did consider ELYSE, however I didn't see it as a really good reason since all except the lithograph can be replaced with free alternatives as the building is still there. Indeed, once I get a GPS unit I'm planning a day trip up get pictures for both myself and to add to its article. *grin* Since that time, I have without objection added an example to the On Revert section of WP:OWNERSHIP which reads, "I'm going to add a better [or free-use] one when I have the time." It would be WP:GAME to hit that editor with that change now, but the clarification may be useful in similar situations in the future.TransporterMan (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, very interesting. I agree that Collectonian's rationale before is weird and in principle I disagree with it, but like I said before I'm deferring to her (vastly) greater experience in writing high-quality articles. Good call by the way on going for discussion at WT:OWN and then going for a BOLD addition, though I would recommend care in editing policy pages normally- while example sections don't make up the substance of the policy, the way Wikipedia policies work is through observation of generally accepted standards throughout the community. Furthermore, as policies aren't intended to have regular exceptions (unlike guidelines), I wouldn't be surprised to see that particular example removed.
 * Moreover, I'm not entirely sure if WP:OWN is the right place for that sort of example; that is to say, I don't identify Collectonian's removal of that link using that rationale as evidence of an article ownership issue. I'm not sure if you consider it so (your adding that example to that policy, however, suggests you do), though if you do... well it's probably best not to throw around those sorts of suggestions; it's just not a good way to foster good faith. I understand however that you don't intend to complain that Collectonian is expressing article ownership in this case.
 * I think WP:EL would be the best place for your suggestion, as I believe you intend for it to apply mostly or entirely to external links. The issue is that the way you worded that example makes it appear to conflict with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. In particular, there are cases where an article has non-free pictures in it (i.e., not just linked in the external links section), but it's reasonable to assume a free content image can be obtained by an editor (regardless of the time or expense involved). In those cases, the non-free images are almost always deleted. This happens a lot with biographical articles, as in almost all cases non-free pictures of living people are not acceptable. Same with images of landmarks, but it's my understanding that external links to such content are quite acceptable and in fact routine.
 * Anyway, I'll stop my tangent here. By the way, you don't need to be all secretive or whatever when talking about Collectonian or other users- it just makes it harder to understand what you mean, and can come off as derisive towards the other editor. I'm sure you didn't intend that, and you don't need to clarify it; I just thought I'd point that out. The only case where it's problematic to talk about a specific user's actions are when you're outright saying they're being disruptive, and in those cases all you need to do is provide proof, and it's usually not considered a personal attack. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being referred to WP:DEADHORSE, just a couple of notes, a question, and a kudo:
 * You're right, and I have edited out the reference to free content in the example in WP:OWN. I put it in because C said, "all [the pictures in the linked site] except the lithograph can be replaced with free alternatives," which is, as you point out, irrelevant to an external link, but I now see that as an example in WP:OWN it was misleading.
 * I do think that it is evidence of an article ownership issue, however, when the revert amounts to a deletion without replacement and the editor stakes a claim to that turf. That is, if an editor replaces your image, text, EL, or whatever with something that they believe is better, that's the essence of editing; the same is true if they delete something which is not beneficial or which is otherwise objectionable; but if they delete something which is at least marginally beneficial and which is not otherwise objectionable and say it is because they intend to eventually replace it with something better, then their explanation is an indication of ownership.
 * (But... Am I missing something about FA/FL articles, however, Mendaliv? Let's say there's an FL article and someone attempts to add something which, though it adds relevant, useful, and appropriate content to the article, is of lesser quality - poorly sourced, perhaps - and could cause the article to drop down to GA status. Can an article be owned to the extent needed to keep it at a particular quality level?)
 * Good point about the secrecy about C's identity, but I was only dancing that dance because I told her, when I asked her why she did what did, that she wouldn't hear from me again regardless of what she answered. By being coy about her identity, I've been trying to gain further knowledge and engage in dialog about the issues without violating that promise or being or seeming back-stabbing or snarky, as that was not my intent. I would have preferred to have communicated to you, both initially and subsequently, through some kind of private communication about it, but if there's a way to do that here I've not discovered it yet. I now see that my promise to her, though well-intended, was short-sighted and a mistake that's made me look like (and perhaps be, if unintentionally) a back-biter, and I regret it.
 * Again, many, many thanks for your help (and have a cup of tea, q.v.). TransporterMan (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you for your kind comments! I'm glad to hear that I've been able to help.
 * I understand what you mean about article ownership a bit better now, but I still disagree that Collectonian's actions are so indicative. I believe her actions are partly intended from a stylistic or other preference which has some support in guidelines and maybe even policy (though I still think the link was quite OK). In how I've seen "WP:OWN" used on here in the past, ownership issues generally refer to editors who chronically revert good faith edits with poor or offensive edit summaries, refuse to accept opinions other than their own with regards to particular articles, engage in fighting on article talk pages. While I don't believe I have much experience with Collectonian, she doesn't strike me as the sort of editor with that sort of problem. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but from my (admittedly limited) observations it doesn't appear you're correct.
 * With regards to FA/GA and other article ratings... to be perfectly honest, I have limited experience in substantial article writing, and even less experience with how the FA/GA and article rating process even works. But, to try and answer your question... it wouldn't necessarily be an ownership issue; rather, it would be a matter of "maintaining consensus". If the editor who added the item felt that item definitely merited addition, he or she should take the question to the article's talk page and try to discuss it. In the case of high-quality articles, there are frequently several active editors watchlisting it. Lower-rated, not so much. But even if discussion leads to an impasse, there are a great deal of dispute resolution outlets available on Wikipedia (as I recall, you had already been to one: WP:EAR).
 * I don't think you'd be coming off as backstabbing or anything else by talking to another editor about genuine questions or concerns about editing in general or a specific incident. I will say though that I try to make a point to avoid promising to "not comment further" on an issue, since I hate breaking such promises. Honestly though, in my experience most people on here aren't so sensitive they'd take offense to a decently-worded cogent question. The only way to engage in private communication with another Wikipedia editor is if he or she has provided an email address... though to be frank, this really isn't a big deal and it's quite alright to discuss it on-wiki.
 * Anyhow, that's all I have to say on this at the moment. Please do let me know if you have any further questions on this issue! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)