Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iridescent (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 17 November 2010 (→Break: Replies: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Oh herro

You seem to know about these things, can I pinch the 1933 image from this page? Obviously I'd remove the logo. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely unless you can establish who the photographer was. Copyright on pictures is usually 70 years after the author's death, and chances are the photographer was still alive in 1940. There's a get-out clause with older material, in that in Florida law everything published pre-1923 is public domain—and thus can be hosted on the Florida-based Misplaced Pages (but not on Commons)—but that won't apply here. – iridescent 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bah. Its from Getty Images, I looked in there and found a few but they're mostly 1950s. I'll look again, perhaps there are some 19th-century piccies around. There must be, somewhere. Parrot of Doom 21:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Old local papers would probably be your best bet. – iridescent 21:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a Victorian sketch on commons somewhere but I think a nice photograph would be better. The above pic is superb, wish I could use it :( Parrot of Doom 21:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have access (most libraries give it, but it's usually buried down the list somewhere), the Illustrated London News archive is usually a goldmine. – iridescent 21:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Declining Deletion of Brandun DeShay

I decline the deletion of Brandun DeShay. Yleonmgnt. New references have been added that are reputable and have wiki articles of their own. Notability is proven with two significant entertainers with wiki articles. I reviewed adjusted the article thanks to the the pointers givin by the one who added it to the deletion discussion in compliance to WP:RS and WP:ENT up to wiki standards. I see the dispute with the reliable sources but the blogs that were mentioned are all reputable and have wiki's themselves except for one: the segalaxy.blogspot.com blog (which i removed). Aside from that one reference, it passes A7. It is in compliance of WP:ENT with significant work from Tanya Morgan and Curren$y. Once again, by collaborating musically with two entertainers with wiki articles themselves the artist just clears A9.--Yleonmgnt (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it, neither you nor I have the power to "decline the deletion". You need to go to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brandun DeShay, and explain why the subject meets at least one of the criteria on this checklist. – iridescent 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Norwich Market

On 15 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norwich Market, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the 16th century people convicted of sedition had their ears nailed to the pillory in Norwich Market, and when their pillory time was completed their ears were cut off? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

• SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

??? Have you linked to the right section? – iridescent 15:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We have a "pick of the week", and problems in every other article. (I was reminding you of how I feel about the "reward culture" being furthered at The Signpost.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That one's actually a non-existent problem (because I used one in Aylesbury duck, I checked the status of Beatrix Potter illustrations quite thoroughly); it's just Tony (rightly) double-checking copyrights. She's PD in the US but not in the UK, so Commons can't touch her but she's free-use on en-wiki. I personally have no problem with the "pick of the week" thing (I even did one judging myself); I find it quite interesting to see the variation each week in what people consider "best", and (so far) it doesn't seem in any risk of turning into a back-scratching exercise. – iridescent 16:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We're talking past each other. You need to go read that editor's entire talk page, including recent blankings. I'm not talking about images; I'm talking about text, and the reward culture that The Signpost is furthering. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear! I'm not sure the Signpost can be blamed for this though. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, looking at the history I see what you mean; I thought you were referring just to that one thread from Tony. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the Signpost or the reward culture in general though; these don't look like they were created with barnstars or the like in mind. Hopefully this is just a blip; in my experience she's a very good writer and reviewer. (If you really want a fish-in-a-barrel exercise of hunting cut'n'pastes-for-credits, go through the contribution history of User:Billy Hathorn. I don't do so because last time I did, I got hauled across ANI for "harassment" by him.) – iridescent 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You might also consider reading all of this (including before the restart), following right on the heels of all of this. Sorry, my job is to defend the integrity of FAC, not promote the reward culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I watched the former, and participated in the latter. As I said there, while I vehemently oppose an "article of the year" award, I can't see any problem with the weekly picks; it's explicitly one editor's personal opinion, and to me is no different to posting "I thought your article was really interesting" on a talk page. The readership of the F&A Signpost page is very low; I think you're crediting it with more influence than it warrants. – iridescent 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Iri, you're not usually obtuse :) Why didn't Tony1 oppose Mauna Kea, which then had to be completely rewritten by other editors in a FAC that drug on for eons? And why is ResMar writing for The Signpost? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing a major problem. Yes, Tony let some things slip through which he'd normally jump on but that's not necessarily evidence of collusion or gaming—everyone has at some point. Tony dislikes me intensely, but he's nonetheless supported things I've written, and he's opposed many articles by his buddies; I really can't see him as corrupt or gaming the system. Likewise, ResMar is (in my opinion) whiny and overly self-important, but the Signpost folks can hardly turn round and kick him out for that unless he's actually causing problems for them—"whiny and overly self-important" isn't exactly unique on Misplaced Pages. (If anything, it ought to be added to the RFA checklist.) – iridescent 17:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC

←1277 hits plus 199 plus 104 plus est. 90 this month, for one page – that gives 1580 since publication, that's ok; they normally build to about 1600 over a few months. I think it's a little higher now. At 75,000+ hits a year in a community of a few thousand, just for F and A, I'd be worried too that the page is prominent and popular.

I don't oppose judges' choices, a suggested option above. You might ask why FAC passed it in the first place. No, the final quality is what counts for readers, and for The Signpost. If there is some moral issue about the ratio of nominators' input versus other people's, why didn't you slap it down in the initial stages and force the issue before a subsequent nomination? Allowing FAC to be a socialist welfare state, or some kind of free car mechanic's corner, for editors to nominate prematurely and let others do the work? Nice. Look no further than home. It's Choice of the week, not Pick of the week. Having spread poison on the F and A talk page for a couple of weeks, now you're starting on user talk pages. I see.

Iridescent, "Tony dislikes me intensely", errr ... where did you get that idea from? Tony (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is some moral issue about the ratio of nominators' input versus other people's, why didn't you slap it down in the initial stages and force the issue before a subsequent nomination? Allowing FAC to be a socialist welfare state, or some kind of free car mechanic's corner, for editors to nominate prematurely and let others do the work?

Actually, it was quite well written-- no need to slap it down. Now this (including before the restart), on the other hand, was curiously endorsed on prose and then had to be completely rewritten at FAC, taking several months. I'm wondering why it wasn't "slapped down in the initial stages", considering the amount of work it generated for FAC reviewers? You're normally very demanding on prose, Tony, but that had evident errors that anyone could see; I've never seen you write a FAC statement quite like that. Please do not let your Signpost COI bleed over into FAC; I'm sure you know that FAC values your judgment on prose, and when you endorse one, FAC may end up carrying it until other editors fix it. Your prose checks are much too valuable for that. SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Break: Replies

@Sandy: This might be a stupid question, but how certain are we that Suzanne was definitely a sock, rather than a well-intentioned user with an insufficient grasp of copyright? I'm not disputing it; I don't know how in-depth the investigation was. While the articles way have been plagiarised, she did appear to have a genuine in-depth knowledge of the (fairly arcane) topic and was able to answer questions on it, which is unusual for a sock in these circumstances. (My personal attitude to socks is fairly well known, thanks to Law and Xtzou; to me, unless the sock starts causing problems or the puppeteer is also operating a bad-hand account, the best course of action is to turn a blind eye. In light of the copyright issues I don't dispute blocking Suzanne as a protective measure, sock or not, but if we're not certain it's a sock account, treating her as one might actually make the situation worse by causing her to create a fresh account, rather than learning from her mistakes and helping to clean up the mess.) Regarding COI at the Signpost pick of the week section, I really don't think it's a major issue, and I've never seen any evidence of it—if anything, the editors doing the picking tend to bend over backwards to avoid any appearance of COI. (When Malleus did the picking, for instance, he picked one written by Wehwalt, and I somehow doubt they're on each other's Christmas card lists.)

I haven't been able to keep up with all of that (the SPI), and won't be able to since I'm traveling tomorrow, preparing today. Looks like a pretty direct hit to me, though. The COI I was referring to was not in "pick of the week"; it was Tony lowering his normal prose standards and turning a blind eye to a very deficient article that appeared at FAC, following on the heels of Tony and that editor having a dispute with me over The Signpost. We all know Tony's standards-- his response on that FAC is most unusual and disappointing, the prose and MOS issues were evident, and others had to fix them in a FAC that drug on for more than a month. Tony could have shut it down, yet curiously, he's asking above why that isn't done. Well, gotta go-- won't be able to do much more today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

@Tony: that "dislike" was based on this; apologies if I misread it but it seemed fairly clear. My comments about you supporting and opposing were regarding FAC/FAR, not Signpost picks; Sandy's argument here is (or appears to me to be) that you ignore prose faults in articles by your friends, which you'd oppose for in articles by other people, and I was pointing out that I don't think that's the case.

Regarding the readership figures of F&A, I still think it's low enough that even if there are problems there—which I'm not saying there are—they wouldn't be the major issue Sandy believes they are. (While it reaches a disproportionate number of "important people" in Misplaced Pages terms, and this is more influential than the readership figures suggest, 1600 hits a month is lower even than my talkpage. For a long time F&A looked like this and was the dullest part of the Signpost, and I strongly suspect a lot of the readers got in the habit of skipping over it and haven't noticed how much it's improved.)

Re "some kind of free car mechanic's corner, for editors to nominate prematurely and let others do the work", in some ways that's become one of the purposes of FAC. Outside of a few areas like military history and music, the peer review process is moribund. Most topics have only a few active editors; if I were to write an article on a horse, for instance, I wouldn't bother taking it to PR because I know who the only three editors likely to comment would be and would just ask them directly. While obviously very ill-prepared nominations are A Bad Thing, for better or worse FAC and GAN have taken over a lot of the functions that in an ideal world would be performed at PR.

@Everyone: I'm going to sound like Jimbo in one of his preachier moods here, but this is really not the time to be arguing over exactly who said what to whom and when. The incidents and mutual recriminations of the last month or so have the potential to deliver a hefty kick in the nuts to Misplaced Pages's entire model, at a time when we're least equipped to deal with the fallout. Judging from the current candidate list, we're about to elect-by-default an Arbcom which will make the 2007 committee pale into insignificance in terms of bias towards the "Misplaced Pages as Facebook for ugly people" model and against content contribution. (At the time of writing, there are five candidates, none of whom AFAIK have ever so much as taken an article through GAN, and who have 23%, 11%, 55%, 45% and 19% mainspace contributions respectively.) Especially if the mooted scheme for the WMF to absorb Citizendium goes ahead, Jimbo will be otherwise engaged and won't be in a position to intervene to keep the ship on course if it does start veering towards the rocks; likewise, with Sanger going bust we're likely to acquire a group of squabbling new editors from Citizendium, all with firm opinions on How Things Ought To Be Done and all nursing substantial chips on their shoulders. Those who do still believe in what Misplaced Pages was intended to be—and Sandy, Tony, Malleus, Moni, Wehwalt, DGG, Cas, Giano, MRG, Kirill, even Mattisse, I think that includes all of you—we really do need to stop squabbling among ourselves and start working together to keep the project from collapsing under its own contradictions. Misplaced Pages doesn't have a divine right to exist; other sites do the social network thing much better, and if the "the community is the only thing that matters" element take full control of the project, we're in danger of becoming irrelevant and going the way of Myspace and AltaVista. – iridescent 16:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy could make things a lot easier in this respect by easing up on the continual posting of negative sentiments. Many people believe she is out on a limb running this "culture of reward" argument. It results from a distorted view, perhaps born of Sandy's heroic and largely successful attempts to clean up what were the bad aspects of FAC, and to improve its standards. I think she underplays her success and sees too much in what I believe are unfounded fears. She forgets that she has the potential to do great good by being positive and supportive. It is the leadership that I had come to admire and expect. Please let us return to it. Tony (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you're both coming from. The reward culture has historically been a genuine problem (remember how many problems the Award Center caused and how hard it was to get rid of it?) and there certainly have been problems at FAC/GAN with mutual driveby supports by Wikicup participants in the past. FAC in particular has a problem with the appearance of cliques, because people with mutual interests tend to review articles on the same topics. (DavidCane and I will almost always review each others articles, for instance, because we're the only FAC regulars with a knowledge of 19th century civil engineering and thus the people most likely to spot problems in each others' articles; to an outsider, it could easily look like an off-wiki conspiracy.) That articles have got through FAC recently which should never have got through (and I say this as someone who supported The Story of Miss Moppet, so I'm not pointing fingers and sneering at people who should have known better) only adds to the feeling that something's gone wrong somewhere. Arbcom's closing-of-ranks around Rlevse and "everyone but us is to blame" attitude has hardly helped, either. – iridescent 16:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not thrilled with the changes enacted last year in arb elections, nor the beaurocracy in the arb elections procedures this year, and I'm afraid we're going to be stuck with the worst ever arbcom now, and more ill-prepared candidates filling up the Committee (all we need now is for Wehwalt to run, too, to end up with another ArbCom soft on coddling disruptive editors). I do wish, in general, that Tony would spend more time in article space and in talk space staying in touch with the community and what's going on beyond MOS, The Signpost, now arb pages. He's losing the touch he used to have, for example, with FAC-- I suppose he wasn't even aware of what happened to the Mauna Kea FAC and how much work it created. We need his valued opinions, hard work, organization, dedication and command of prose to be used more effectively, but he isn't always aware of what's going on out there in the trenches any more, including concerns about the "reward culture". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would Revolver, High Times and Alternative Press make for reliable sources for a music article? They're interviews. Thanks in advance.-Red marquis (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say yes, although it would depend on exactly what they were used to claim; if it's for something potentially controversial (especially if it has the potential to reflect negatively on living people, such as details of band splits) people might demand more neutral sources. (Interviews by their nature only give one person's side of an argument.) You might want to speak to Pyrrhus16 or Parrot of Doom, who respectively watch over the ultra-controversial Michael Jackson and Pink Floyd topics, on how best to deal with potentially disputable claims about music and musicians. – iridescent 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)