User talk:Sdsds/Archive Nov 2007

Howdy do!
Hi S, Got your message, and I'm looking into them, I'm going to get another opinion, but I think that all (or most) should be removed. The book reference I placed into proper citation and put in "Further reading" because there's no way to know what part of the book relates to the article. But video links are generally not allowed, let me get back to you with that in a bit. Ariel ♥ Gold 03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Please see here for details. Now, I realize the book may be of some use as a "Further reading" source for other articles, so it may be appropriate to add it to such a section, but without page number, and inline footnotes to know what passage it references, it shouldn't be used as a reference or source. Hope that helped! Ariel ♥ Gold 04:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hee hee, you're most welcome. And 19 days to go! Woo hoo! Ariel ♥ Gold 06:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Want to see something ridiculous?
Look at the absolutely unbelievable overkill of footnotes here. This is really verging on someone trying to make a point, (IMO) and results in a really disruptive article. I asked at WP:VPP a while ago, and this is definitely not advised. 2-3 refs tops is needed to cite a particular passage for the most part, with some passages having more for clarity, but 13+ for one sentence? LOL. You'll see this at Lisa Nowak too. I've been cleaning up in the wake of the earlier SPP, editing Astronaut, adding in references to it, and formatting it a bit better, but this article is in dire need of cleanup as well, if you're bored, lol. I'd suggest moving a lot of those refs to external links (if they are even reliable sources, I haven't checked many of them) or nuking them altogether. When a passage is proven with sources, there's no need to beat the point home, lol. Anyway, by no means feel obligated, I just remembered it today when working on the other stuff, and thought I'd show you the silliness, lol. I'll be going to sleep soon but maybe I'll fix it up tonight. Cheers! Ariel ♥ Gold 11:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like laziness more than anything else. Pehaps they intended to return later and work those footnotes into the text a bit more. I've taken a stab at doing that, and reduced the disruption a bit I hope! (I didn't remove any refs, even though some of them seem to be of dubious value.) (sdsds - talk) 14:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd explain it in detail but as long as it gets sorted out, it isn't really relevant. Suffice it to say, it wasn't laziness, it was a sock issue. Thanks for fixing it up! Ariel ♥ Gold 14:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
Would you be willing to follow up on the comments you made at Konstantin Tsiolkovsky? The page has ended up protected because neither I nor Commator was willing to give up the issue, and I think he considers his response to your edit an unanswered challenge. I think that having the article protected is almost as disruptive as our petty edit war was, but if you would return and respond to his questions, it might help us resolve the issue so that we can move on. - Rainwarrior 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will follow up on this matter as best I can. There appear to be difficulties with communication, which might make this take a bit more time. I don't expect a resolution will be reached quickly. Is having the article protected truly a disruption? Aren't there ways (i.e. with an administrator's assistance) to get well-sourced material added to protected articles? And then -- is there some reason why this article deserves attention when so many others are languishing either undeveloped or in disrepair? (sdsds - talk) 19:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, it's not really an urgent thing. I just don't think I can work it out between myself and Commator without outside help. - Rainwarrior 21:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tsien Hsue-shen
The article is on line; I'll amend to include the link.--Bedivere 07:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Dunin Afd
Don't delete good-faith comments because you have an emotional stake in this issue. This is a non-notable biography and this and related family spam is a waste of project resources. This smacks of censorship and does not make your views seems arm's length from this Dunin spam problem. 72.107.35.156 22:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that, like you, I favor deletion of the article in question. I feel it is in the best interests of our common goal to keep the discussion at the afd on-track -- our cause is not served by bringing into question the motives of other editors. (sdsds - talk) 22:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and from your comments to WJBScribe I now see you are earnest and correct on the merits of this discussion. This Dunin family spam however has been a terrible and continuing waste of time and project resources.  Not to mention the collateral damage created and the seeming hypocracy pertaining to policy ignored for certain editors. This undermines the utility of policy for all.   72.107.35.156 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing that bothers me the most about this isn't that vanity articles are maintained, but that the editor who took it upon himself to vet these articles and bring the problems to the attention of the community, Matt57 was charged with "harassing" their creator, blocked twice in a row by her allies (who have proven reliable "keeps" on all these articles) for things it turned out that he hadn't actually done, and is now a few days away from coming off a one month block for having kept the issue alive. Nor was he the only one who suffered - I too, was charged with "harassment" and "wikistalking" for having examined the issue after Matt57's first block, and defending him against subsequent threats - without going into details, suffice it to say that I was made to pay dearly for this. If Matt57 hadn't done that, it's unlikely that this sorely-needed scrutiny would have been undertaken. These articles need to go for many reasons, but another good one is that, so long as they're here, editors meaning to do nothing besides uphold our sourcing policies may find themselves threatened, harassed, outed, blocked or even banned by the same unscrupulous back-channel gang which jumped Matt57 and myself.Proabivouac 00:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)