User talk:Thparkth/Archives/2011/March

Level the game
I see that you removed the speedy deletion tag - while I have no problems with that, surely an article that appears to have been created after a few beers should be a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately "appears to have been created after a few beers" isn't actually one of the current criteria for speedy deletion, but I kind of like the idea ;) Thparkth (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Saeed
Just wanted to thank you for a whiff of common sense at the deletion and nfcr discussion. While there may be questions about whether we need the image instead of just text describing it, or whether the family needs to clearly release permission in order for us to use it, or whether it is public domain--the notion that we would consider it immoral to harm the state morgue of the now deposed Mubarak regime while a family was attempting to photograph their own family member so they could expose systematic human rights abuses is, to me, ludicrous. Ocaasi (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to admit, I'm really scratching my head trying to understand the mindset of the people arguing for deletion on the grounds that it was taken without the permission of the military dictatorship who had just tortured the guy to death. Thparkth (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my estimation, Wikipedia attracts two main types of editors: generalists--who enjoy politely lording it over experts and laypeople because they are quick learners, good discussers, and comfortable in many content and policy areas; and specialists--who have a single-mindedness about something whether it be a subject matter, a POV, an approach to policy, or a literal reading of facts and laws in general, of which Wikipedia has many.  The latter people are important because they keep the generalists from floating into too many uncharted territories... but sometimes they are ridiculous and it seems they cannot, for the life of them, see the forest for the trees.  These are the people who would get run over in the middle of the street because the light turned red on them half way during their crossing (as opposed to the generalists, who would get run over starting when it was red).  I don't know if you are one of these categories--the best editors are optimally informed and flexible--but I think about that sometimes when I run into people who just might not know when to look both ways and get the heck out of the intersection, or to put NFCC#6 away and make good on a man's inspiring, tragic, well-sourced legacy.  Ocaasi (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

font / old pd question
Thparkth, does mean that if I were to derive better quality svg files from that source you provided it would certainly be PD? Dan ☺  12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe so, but I'm an engineer, not a lawyer :) Thparkth (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the "copyrighted material" at the bottom right corner of the google books page irrelevant? I'd like to make those svg files, but not if they'll end up gettig deleted because of pd issues. You seemed to be certain about the file I nominated for deletion, how would svg files derived from what you offered as a source for that other file be different? Dan ☺ 12:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The individual glyphs are not copyrightable in the USA - typography and calligraphy are not protected by copyright. But there are other things on that page that probably are, including the layout and arrangement, accompanying text etc. There is no "Sweat of the brow" doctrine in the USA, so the sheer amount of work that the author and publisher of the book put into gathering the information and preparing it doesn't actually earn them any copyright protection - only originality does that, and there's no originality in printing an ancient alphabet. So yes, as long as you copied only the actual glyphs from the source I found, I am certain that the result would be public domain. But I'm not a lawyer so don't blame me if you get sued ;) Thparkth (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I won't Emblem-extra-cool.svg Dan ☺ 23:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
I think you may not fully realize some of the background issues involved in some of the cases. For instance, the only "TV series" that I can find in my recent deletion history were things called "Working Title", "Airplanes" and "The Deadline Prophecies", none of which were actually real TV series, airing on something called "NSD-TV", which isn't a real TV channel. NSD-TV is some random teenager's YouTube "channel", and all three of the "TV series" were non-notable, plotless three-to-five-second clips he uploaded there. Which, ultimately, means they are valid A7s, because they're web content — the fact that they claimed to be real TV series doesn't get them past A7, because the claims in question were neither credible nor verifiable.

As for the movie, I perhaps explained my rationale poorly, but at the time I saw and deleted the article, its sole cited source didn't actually support the existence of the film at all — and there actually is a bit of an underground movement on here sometimes of people creating articles about presumed future film sequels that haven't actually been announced by a studio (and several of which have failed to ever materialize.) So the onus isn't on us to necessarily give every article the benefit of the doubt; it's on the creator to provide at least one source which confirms that the film in question actually is in the pipeline.

It's also true that in some cases, two good Wikipedia contributors can look at the same article and come to completely opposite conclusions about whether it meets the speedy criteria or not. That doesn't necessarily mean either contributor acted wrongly, however; it just means that (as I did with Bob Long) the deleting editor should make a good faith move of restoring the article and taking it to discussion instead.

I guess I'd just ask you to consider that there can be a lot of reasons why something may not be as inappropriate a speedy candidate as it might seem — sometimes there are background issues that might not be obvious if you're not familiar with them, sometimes editors just explain their choices less effectively than we should (and gawd knows I've also sometimes accidentally selected the wrong criterion from the dropdown box for an article that was legitimately deletable under a different criterion), and sometimes there's just a valid difference of opinion. That said, you're still right that I have at one time or another made a perfectly good faith mistake, too — hell, we all have, gawd knows — but there are a lot of potential explanations, so it's certainly better to discuss them when you disagree. So thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)