User talk:Turqoise127/Archive 1 - 2009

Magnum Crimen
This article and AfD discussion might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Bongo  matic  22:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

-- Cycl o pia -  talk  00:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Smears
Hi Turqoise127

A number of your recent edits (the AfD for Boba Phat, Cyclopia's talk page) state or imply the existence of editors ganging up to game Wikipedia's processes, and further imply the inappropriateness of such.

First, if you want to talk about inappropriate ganging up, you should be aware of a formal body that exists in practice almost solely to vote in blocs against deletion. The Article Rescue Squadron works by tagging articles with a template, so that other editors are alerted to the existence of a speedy, prod, or AfD nomination. The usual result is vote packing at AfD discussions without improvement to articles (the nominal goal of the squadron). This leads to far more "unfair advantage" by virtue of "block votes" and "sway[ing of] opinion" than a few editors who occasionally show up at the same AfD discussions.

Here's the great thing about AfD discussions. Anyone (except sock puppets and blocked users) can show up and opine. All someone needs to do is go to Articles for deletion and start browsing. You may think that when a number of editors show up opining "delete" for an article, and none on the other side show up to opine "keep", it's an indication of unfair voting blocs. But in fact, it generally indicates that:
 * editors who have a predilection to stringent interpretation of WP:N agree it's not notable;
 * middle-of-the-road editors agree it's not notable; and
 * editors who have a predilection to a lenient interpretation of WP:N either believe in their hearts that it's a clear-cut case, or realize that the obvious weight of the consensus--notwithstanding their disagreement--makes it not worthwhile to bother opining.

The same occurs where "keep" is either obvious to all, or so widely supported that editors with limited time don't bother to tilt at windmills. I don't know how other editors do it, but when I browse through AfD discussions, I tend not to bother with snowball cases in either direction unless I have some knowledge of the subject or believe an important principle is being illustrated.

In any event, your continued smear campaign against "certain groups" as "plainly unfair" is against policy and has become more than tiresome. Cut it out.

Bongo  matic  01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Bongomatic, it is flattering how you stalk me and react to every single contribution I make. However I think you are over-reacting a bit. I mentioned no names in any of my comments; they were general. If expressing my views on certain events that I witness is against policy, please tell me how so, because it reaks of censorship. I do stand by my views, I think you know that. And even though I like and respect you, I am not really looking for friends here. Your article rescue squadron comment and illustration is definitely a valid point, but you must take into account that they (squadron) are reactionary, so they (at least I think, could be wrong) react to deletionist strong-arming of marginal or worthy articles that really could/should be kept. Be that as it may, if you ever feel something I do is against policy, do what you gotta do, caus I will not be changing anytime soon. I am still looking at my options regarding my issues; do nothing and attempt to soften influence with my presence on here, write essays, discuss at water pump, arb com, whatever. I don't know enough about Wiki yet. I will learn though...Turqoise127 (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bongomatic, while what you say is formally true, and I agree that ARS can be kind of questionable -even if I like it and even tag ARS sometimes- it is also true that the same names often come out at AfDs, in both camps -including myself recently. Especially BLPs attract a regular bunch of strongly minded editors in both camps, but for example software-related discussions have their regulars too. The reason, of full good faith, is simple: AfDs naturally attract people (like me) who happen to care about the problem of inclusion or deletion of articles, and sometimes of particular article categories. This might give the impression our fellow Turquoise has. Also, there is the Wikipedia Review jolly, which sort of complicates the thing.
 * In short: It is probably true that there is no "gang" (or relevant one at least -there has been indeed a recent AN/I about two editors regularly joining to push software-related deletions and stalking editors). It is however true that a newcomer can have this impression and react consequently -I risked to end into the same pitfall.
 * To Turquoise: I am not a particularly relevant, good or skilled editor (quite the opposite). However I want to give you some little common sense advice (which I myself not always follow, alas). First, read a lot around. Policies and their talk pages, see what policies/guidelines are cited at AfDs, village pump etc. Second, try to always stay cool and be humble. Bring your ideas forward without fear, but avoid heating debates always and do all your best to AGF. Otherwise there is the risk of spiraling up unnecessary flames and your WP experience will be much less pleasurable. You give me no reason at all to think you are not keeping cool :) but it is all too easy for all of us to get emotional and suspicious, so that's just my 2 cents. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  22:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Lucia Gorea
Notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the note. No one had voted when I dropped you my question, but it's good that Wikipedians are on top of things! :) Have a good week. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you celebrate Halloween? Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good news!
As the official Croatian delegate to the bacon cabal, you are hereby put in charge of the Croatian cuisine articles related to Doughnut Drive 2009. Thank you for leading efforts on Trijesce, Primoštenske fritule, Fritule, Istarski cukarini, Kroštule, Krafne, Krofna, Krafna. I know you're going to do a fantastic job. Feel free to coordinate with other editors and those from nations less well-endowed with notable doughnuts who may want to be a part of this international effort. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably mention that article subjects need to meet notability guidelines. So consider whether the subjects should be merged into one article on Croation doughnuts or whether some varieties can be included with the existing articles on simlar types (ie. jelly doughnut). Please let me know if you have any questions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Should krafna be redirected to krafne? Is this a good picture of them ? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi CoM. I think I kind of like you, despite other editors apparent distaste of your antics and draggings to ANI. You are a good guy who just a few entries above offered me kind words (and yes, I do celebrate Halloween, I live in the US). Also, I appreciate your heads up notices on certain afd’s and articles, I will always check out your recommendations and offer my objective opinion (which seems to be similar to yours quite often). And, you know what, I kind of like your sick humor (sometimes even your votes on afds make me laugh). I also think you are a valuable editor here and your opinions on issues are always spot on and relevant. Regardless, as flattering as it would be to be the official Croatian delegate to the bacon cabal, I must respectfully decline because I do not wish to be in cohoots with anyone. I wish to be an island. A tropical one preferably. Or a peninsula. As far as the donuts are concerned; in Croatia, these pastries are simply not as beloved as are in the States. “krafne” is a plural form of “krafna”, and “krofna” is a variant spelling used in Bosnia. On your user page is a great picture of them, that is exactly it (the mesmerizing picture above here with the gentleman who does not look weird at all contains also donuts I believe, but no powder sugar on top (of the donut, not the weird guy)). With coverage of krafna, you are pretty much set on the donuts in the Balkans. Maybe I would add “fritule”, which look exactly like the Dutch oliebollen in the picture at Doughnut Drive 2009.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Trijesce, Primoštenske fritule (should these be noted in fritule? The length of the name suggests it's highly significant), and Istarski cukarini? Are these some other kind of fried dough?
 * No man is an island. Although, based on his eating habits I think Drmies may be getting close.
 * I'm not sure if membership in the bacon cabal is optional. I will have to check with K-Stick and Drmies. Your designation as official Croation delegate to the Doughnut Days 2009 event is definitely irrevocable. I'm not sure why that guy's krofna don't have powdered sugar on them. Troubling.
 * Welcome to America! How are you liking it so far? I have fond memories of my co-worker and buddy Kreshmir from a summer long ago, and I've always wondered what he's been up to since and hoping he's been doing well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Turqoise, I think it would be wise to accept CoM's nomination--keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. I look forward to an exquisite article on krofna. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Pricing Game AFD's
Please feel free to contribute your input on this and related AFD's: Articles for deletion/Check Game Sottolacqua (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Price Is Right (U.S. game show) Merge Proposals
I've proposed editing and merging One Bid, Showcase Showdown and The Showcase into the respective sections of The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). Please feel free to comment here. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Media bias in India
Though I have writing to wiki I am new to Wikipolitics. "Media bias in India" got deleted by comments and votes of those who either did not care, did not know or had vested interests. I will be thankful if you can create or revoke and allow an article of that nature mature. I only write and lack energy and time to fight politics. Thank you for the support, ~rAGU (talk)

Talkback
Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Yanson
The deletion discussion on this language scholar might interest you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

advice
don;t overdo things with personal attacks. you'll notice how I just commented at the most recent Deletion Review, and that's going as far as is appropriate. Closers will learn if enough "no consensus, default to delete" like this are overturned. The worst thing that could happen is that they might get the idea that those of us who are insisting on policy are not being level-headed enough. Success at Wikipedia goes to those who both make the strongest arguments and appear the most reasonable. A person who resorts to  insults or personal attacks or claims of conspiracy (true or false) usually loses. I've been working at deletion review for three years now, and I think those of us who feel like I do have accomplished a good deal in getting policy more rational and opposing the anti-BLP tendencies. Please do not mess it up. First, redact what you said, second apologize--whether right or wrong, if someone complains about what I said, I always apologize--it keeps things from escalating. And for future afds that need overturning, please do it in a dispassionate spirit. If there needs eventually to be a case made against any particular admins, Del Rev is not the place. Rather, it's the place to accumulate what might eventually be evidence. Personally, I think they'll change when they realize the community is against them--take care the community does not come to be against you. `   DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sir for your sound advice. I had struck out the insulting parts of my comment and apologized even before you wrote this. I tend to have a short fuse and fly off the handle when I am passionate on an issue, I will work on self control. I will not mess up the effort so far like you mentioned, I am sorry that never entered my mind. I felt that seeing many deletion oriented editors be rude and similarly agressive, the opposers of the anti-BLP tendencies could use their own bull in a china shop (because sometimes all certain people understand is firmness, agression and straightforwardness). Again, sorry, and thanks for the advice.Turqoise127 (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. just keep in mind the difference between firmness, which is good, and aggression, which is not -- both here and in the real world also.   DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited comment
I happened across this request for comments and thought I'd toss in my $0.02. At the ensuing AfD discussion, you will be asked to demonstrate that there is reliably sourced evidence of meeting PROF or GNG. Resorts to OR and SYNTH are unlikely to sway the day.

If you wish to get rid of the redlink, there are more effective ways&mdash;remove the reference (or at least the brackets). Bongo  matic  23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BONGO!!!! You're back! I sure missed you and your harrasment. What ever am I going to do when you finally succeed in totally deleting that article from even my user space? Wiki is just not the same fun without you. I hated that you gave me the cold shoulder for the longest time...
 * I was going to ask for your thoughts on my changes next, but you beat me to it.
 * If I didn't know better it almost seems like you have a bias or prejudice vs. this article or subject of it, which I don't understand. I removed your notablilty tag from Emil Nolde and you didn't react. Well, anyways, when you placed a notability tag on Vladimir Ivir and another editor removed it after finding sources -that taught me a lot about you; you do not know everything, you CAN be wrong and you did not look for sources yourself in that instance. Thus, I believe you are also wrong on the article at hand that you have commented here about, but for some reason ademant about removing it. Bongo, I wish you would help me with it instead. Be that as it may, if there is an ensuing AfD discussion (as you stated above, I don't know why, are you going to have the userfied copy deleted too?), you can rest assured I will not do smears again or be accusing. So if it irks you that much bring your army of followers and delete what you wish. I will not cry too hard as I have not since. I actually have fun on Wiki.Turqoise127 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Turqoise, watch it. Read my second reply--one sentence, and memorize it. It is extremely unwise to  respond to provocation.   If there is an AfD, please be careful. Limit your reply to one or two sentences, talking only aboutthe subject of the article, not the comments anyone else may make, regardless of whether you think them misguided.  DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But this editor made a comment on my own talk page... I agree with your classification of his comment as a provocation, but I do not think I was rude in my response to him? I like this editor as much as he does not share that opinion of me; am I to not even be allowed a few jabs now and then? I think there is nothing wrong with a little collegial disagreement at times as long as all remains civil... which it has; this editor has not been too offended by my nature thus far. I will work hard in toning down, but please let me be myself...Turqoise127 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

about that article
I did not participate in the first AfD, though I often do on such topics, so I will give you my preliminary opinion now.. I think the article is very marginal.

We have been quite reluctant to accept articles about people known primarily as translators, unless there are excellent secondary sources about them, or unless they have at least translated multiple major works of literature that have become classic translations. The key question is going to be whether we should apply more lenient standards because of the relatively less widely-spoken language. For researchers, we have been consistent that the standard is world-wide importance, and we do not usually apply different standards. For non-research careers like his, we sometimes have done so. Among the problems: he has not translated many books (about 5), he is therefore not at all likely to be among the most prominent translators from English or any other language into Czech,, there is no indication he is teaching in the new course , the material on raising standards seems advocacy of a position, not bio on him, the US paragraph and the photos should be removed--they do not add to the positive impression. Try if you like, but I doubt I would vote !keep on the basis of the present evidence.

If you wish to write good articles that will be accepted here, pick not just people you happen to know about, but the most prominent figures in the country or field who do not yet have articles. And Bongo's advice is correct,  check first that there have been biographical books or articles written about them or their works. WP PROF can be met without them only for the people at the top of their profession, such as named chairs at a university. For authors, substantial book reviews are usually sufficient. Remember the existence of Google translate--it's crude, even for the best-known languages, but it will help people read sources in another language.  DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments and interest DGG, I appreciate it. Even before the initial AfD you had opined the article was marginal, and I respect your opinion. You know, at that first AfD I wrote and wrote essays trying to explain what significance I saw in this article and it is in large part what ended up burrying it. Thereafter I tried to concentrate on the policy aspects and technical matters, but your comment here forces me to maybe revert a little.
 * I do not believe this person is known primarily as a translator. In fact, he seems to have been not very active nor published, like you mention-with not too many works. I do not think we should apply more lenient standards, I advocate every article should be judged on the same merits.
 * No he is not teaching the new course nor is part of faculty. The photos are there to strengthen the significant coverage source from the tv show.
 * What I deem notable is that this kid initiated change in profession standards on a national level. He wrote very convincing papers on the issue that got published, one of which was used as course material in Germany. This indicates world interest. His activism eventually lead to new standards being introduced on a national level(I show this in the "Lasting impact..." paragraph) and a new university course being introduced, with the wording on the proposal for new course is strikingly similar to his academic publishing. This constitutes lasting impact on a profession or field. How can I change the article so it is this notability that comes through to the reader instead of just some translator article?Turqoise127 (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Odjava.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Odjava.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Show Introduction.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Show Introduction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SegmentCredits.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SegmentCredits.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-free images are allowed only in the article space, not in the "user" space. There's a grace period of a week to get them back into the article space.  Even if the files/images are deleted, any admin will be able to restore them when they're ready to go into the article space.  Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Skier Dude, thanks for your explanation. Another editor (see above) actually doubled your work and tagged the same images in the same way. When I approached the editor on their talk page they stated that "they didn't know I was still actively working on the article and to go ahead and remove the tags" which I did. But then you tagged the same tags and explained as above here. I guess I am just confused, would you please guide me to where in policy it states what you mentioned about the one week grace period. I was under the impression when an article is userfied per admins that images are ok. Thank you in advance. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays Turqoise127
Take care of yourself and have a warm and enjoyable winter. :) I hope 2010 will be a terrific year for you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Holiday greeting
Thanks for the holiday greeting!

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Bongo  matic  02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
to you too! sorry about the article bad outcome, such is wikilawyering Pohick2 (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)