User talk:ScottyBerg/Archives/2011/December

Please comment on Talk:Greg Pak
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Greg Pak. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

L'Auberge (restaurant)
Excuse me, but are you kidding me? L'Auberge (restaurant) is a restaurant that had two Michelin stars for eight years. And one Michelin star for five years. Michelin starred restaurants are regarded the summum of culinary quality. A restaurant with one Michelin star is already regarded as notable, so what about a restaurant that had two of them? You can get more information through WikiProject Food and drink Please, review your tag. Night of the Big Wind talk  16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but I didn't see it passing muster with the general notability guidelines, due to lack of sourcing. I'm still not seeing that rectified. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Four sources is not enough? Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Four incidental mentions? No, not enough. If you can't get multiple indepedent sources on the restaurant, I'll nominate for deletion. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Some sources: I hope you also realize that the restaurant is already closed for more then 10 years... Night of the Big Wind talk  19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * http://langeleidse35.squat.net/Pers/2003-11-00_Elsevier.htm
 * http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2844/Archief/archief/article/detail/414594/1995/09/23/Ik-ben-geen-Michelin-slijmer.dhtml


 * Yes, I'm aware that it's the long-closed restaurant of a non-notable chef. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a well-known restaurant in the Netherlands. I don't know most Michelin star restaurants by name but this one was well publicized in Dutch media in its time. The chef was quite notable, Michelin star winning chefs generally are especially the ones who won two stars (which is a feat only few achieve) and he featured in De Volkskrant, a leading Dutch newspaper. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Captain R. Wilson Public School
Had to judge this a delete, since it fails WP:ORG. Regards. Edison (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I notice that a common outcome is redirect. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yummy Jummy
Have you ever met someone who feeds with the (im)patience of others, so your disturbance would be a delicacy for those dissatisfied gluttons?. I would leave that soup-opera aside. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm fully aware of the situation. Thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, at least I think I do. I can think of two talk page discussions that you may be referring to. But I think the same concept applies to both. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sling-on
Hi ScottyBerg

I really appreciate if you would help me to correct the article on Sling-on. I did read the guide line and I hope you can help me post it back. Please, If you would, in simple term tell me what to change about it.

Thank you, Jeff /PersianHunter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersianHunter (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's possible unless the company that makes this product qualifies for an article of its own. Have you read ? ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy Saunders wiki page
To ScottyBerg, I am struggling to understand how to progress this. The text submitted is my own copyright because i also created the original website that the text comes from. i have in any case changed and edited this text in order to better suit wikipedia, and is not copied directly. I was getting references for the wiki page when you sent me this message. From Ninjakins — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjakins (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Wachowskis
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Wachowskis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

non admin close (occupy homes article)
Any hints on how to do so? I've never done that. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never done so either. You can follow the closing instructions on the AfD page, but I think it would be more prudent to post a note in the AfD discussion page. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

East Harlem - neighborhood boundaries
That was a good catch re the unexplained changes in East Harlem neighborhood boundaries. It may be related (possibly, though not conclusively) to upcoming squabbles in political re-districting, so it's a good thing to watch for. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sentence length (linguistics) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sentence length (linguistics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sentence length (linguistics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cnilep (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bowery song
It came up in a Google search when I searched precisely for Bowery + "Trip to Chinatown" http://www.archive.org/details/TheBoweryFromATripToChinatown. I am staying at a hotel on the Bowery and I remembered this song from the America Sings ride at Disneyland :) Keizers (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's good to know. I'm surprised it's in the public domain as it sounds like a recent recording. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Filipa Moniz Perestrelo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please review my article?
Hey :) I am kinda new here and slightly clueless. I do understand that you are busy but I made this new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhundo. I do know that it is a low priority article etc but want to be confident if this is how good articles are started. Do you mind reviewing it for me, please? :) Or, could you redirect me to someone who may be free to help? Thanks! Noopur28 (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't create Dabeli but I will try to contribute to it. Most references are not digitized hence finding them is a problem. Thanks for the speedy response :) Noopur28 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Abbas
Hi -- you are asking good questions at the AfD, but they are based on a false premise (not one introduced by you). There is no BLP violation on the talk page -- it has been a very sensible discussion about whether to include information on the basis of the sources available. There is no small amount of misinformation in the AfD nomination and certain contributions by some delete !voters. I have been the main established contributor keeping watch over this article for the last two years -- if you have any questions about it I'll be happy to address them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying - I appreciate it. I'm just trying to figure out why people are so vehemently in favor of deletion. I really respect DGG, and he's no deletionist as you know. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a legitimate broader concern about BLPs containing untrue negative information. In this case, that concern is misplaced: the information is negative, but it's not untrue (as evident for the fact that Abbas apologized for his errors ).  JN466 has been very keen to give a different impression, and I agree that the reason is a puzzle.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point there is no negative information of any kind. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True. JN466 is nominating it now because I proposed to add a single sentence (based on the source above, with NPOV as a perfectly reasonable rationale), and it was becoming apparent that he was likely to lose the argument.  It's a content dispute masquerading as a deletion discussion, in which JN466 is happy to foster the impression that there is some massive BLP violation.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I haven't followed the underlying dispute very closely. I know that there are good reasons not to include negative information apart from sourcing. Perhaps it's undue weight. Right now I have a fairly open mind, and I was hoping to get a response from DGG or another of the "deletes" that might address my concerns. I'm happy to change my vote to delete if there are sufficient grounds. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity, how are you able to read Jayen's mind to know just what he is thinking? Also, why do you desire so badly to include the negative information about that person in the article? Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in your first question -- mainly because JN466 has repeatedly declined to answer some of my own questions about the basis for his actions. As for the second, it's really very simple (and I have been saying it consistently now for many months): NPOV, and the fact that the information (i.e., retraction of a scholarly article on grounds that parts were copied without proper attribution, a.k.a. plagiarism) is unquestionably true.  It's not a terribly strong desire -- I'm likely to lose this argument and I won't shed any tears.  But I do think it's the right approach.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as you've dropped in, perhaps you can explain to me what harm is done to Abbas by that article as currently written. It seems fine to me. Can the problem be addressed by keeping the article, keeping out the plagiarism stuff if it's problematic, and nuking whatever in the talk pages or archives that doesn't belong there? ScottyBerg (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the guy has asked for the article to be deleted. If an individual arguably does not meet WP's notability standard, which is the case here, IMO, then I think we should delete the article.  Also, after what has happened to this article in the recent past, do you think if you were Abbas you would be inclined to trust WP's administration and its promises to watch his article and keep it clean, especially with established editors continuing to campaign to include a mention of the pejorative information? Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the article history, but I'll take a look. I understand why the subject would want it deleted, but I don't think that's enough. He seems pretty prominent, yet I'm struck by the vehemence of the deletion !votes. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In giving the article history a skim, I understand more fully why the subject wants it deleted. The problem is the article in its previous version, but also the talk page. In effect, the talk page became a chat room where he was raked over the coals. I'm still not sure that deleting the article is the optimal way to deal with this. However, if policy allows subjects to request deletion in situations like this, then perhaps it should be deleted. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be grateful to have a couple of examples of the BLP violations on the talk page. I'm fully committed to BLP myself, and it would help to have a better sense of what others in the community consider to be violations -- I will take seriously the possibility that I should consider them that way myself.  As for the article, I too can understand why the subject wants it deleted, but I take a different view as to how much weight that desire should carry in situations like this.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the extensive discussion, throughout the page, of plagiarism. Reading the page cold, without any preconceived notions about this dude, I came away with the view of him as a plagiarist who was fighting via IPs to keep this out of the encyclopedia. That was my overall impression, totally objective, uninvolved, not giving a hoot. I don't think we can properly subject subjects of BLPs to that kind of treatment if there is a valid reason not to include the plagiarism stuff, as apparently there was. In effect, it negates the decision not to include the plagiarism allegations because it's all laid out in the talk page. I'm not pointing figures or accusing anyone, just sayin. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. It puzzles me, however.  My view, rooted in sustained close attention to the article, the talk page, and the relevant sources, is that he was a plagiarist fighting via IPs to keep it out of the encyclopedia (after his primary account, Drtahir007, was blocked for sockpuppets).  Certainly prior to the point at which the Times Higher Education article was removed from their website (only a couple of weeks ago), there wasn't a valid reason not to include it.  Even now, we know via the Citizenship Studies retraction linked above that, whatever its problems might be, the Times Higher article was not incorrect in its claims about that journal article.  What I find so unfortunate about the AfD discussion is that many of those voting delete appear to believe he has been mistreated insofar as the plagiarism allegations are untrue, when in fact at a minimum the CS-related claims are true -- in which case it is not a BLP violation to include them (though of course also reasonable to take the other view), still less to discuss them on the talk page.  I imagine this discussion might start to test your patience, and again i'm grateful for your thoughts so far.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomo, with all due respect I think you're missing my point. As you know, I voted originally to keep because I didn't see what all the fuss was about. It was a positive article. He seemed reasonably notable. But when I turned to the talk page and weighed the delete comments, especially DGG, I began to understand the problem. It's not that random vandals have stopped in at the page to heave insults at Abbas. It's that respectable users, with unimpeachable motives, have been focused on the plagiarism allegations, giving the impression of him as an unethical and dishonest person. Previous versions of the article gave undue weight to the plagiarism allegations. Since evidently we allow subjects of biographies who are marginally notable to request deletion, I changed my vote. I am by nature a deletionist who believes that there is far too much in Wikipedia that just doesn't belong there, and that paring it all down is a good idea. Keep that in mind. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

 * Wishing you and your loved ones the best this coming year. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! My best to you and your family. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)