User talk:Grutness/archive30

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

Stubstuff

Stub types for projects

30 is the threshold for a WikiProject's basic stub template. In other words, the threshold for {{agriculture-stub}} is 30, since the wikiproject is WP:Agriculture. - from here.

OK, I see what you're saying about it. This really should include active task forces too, particularly as there is movement to consolidate projects recently, led by folks like User:John Carter, that is resulting in a lot of projects being "taskforcized" and a lot of would be projects being made into task forces in order; this may not need to be stated explicitly, but I wanted to raise the issue with you. Probably won't have much practical effect, since any active task force, as with a project, is likely to have plenty of stubs in it's basic category.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SouthAm-composer-stub

I know it's an affectation of mine, but I place sf?-t tags inside the table of templates that use tables on a row of their own. That means when its finished the entire row can go. It's also why I made two separate edits when I nominated the stub for renaming. The first edit was general cleanup and the second edit was the actual nomination. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

First of all let me say that you were way more polite about that than I expected.

Before I created the stubs I checked through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting pages, to ensure that they followed the guidlines laid out there, but I found my self very disturbed by the amount of control the project is attempting to exert. I have nothing against the members and I am sure that the aims and goals of the project and the people involved with it are only trying to help Wikipedia. However, I find the idea of having to ask permission to edit is un-Wikipedia like. We trust editors to create articles, complex templates, categories and upload material, but to create a stub type, they have to ask permission. Do you not find it a bit strange that you need to ask permission (Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2008/April/6) to delete a category, update nine templates and create the correct category?

It was an obvious error and after looking through the notes I made when preparing and found that I had noted it was supposed to be Central Africa. Anyway I will take care of the renaming and fix the templates for the Middle Africa. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Computer died so it took me longer than I expected. Jus got finished. I saw this before so I updated all the other Central African stub templates. Deleted the empty Middle African category. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would help if the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals were made a little less confusing. Though exactly how I'm not sure. As an example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#"Speedy creation" is enough to make your eyes water. Anyway I will not make anymore stub templates without approval but I must admit that [Category:Asian airport stubs|this]] is tempting. And now I depart cursing over the fact that I just spent the last hour Wikifiying what turns out to be a copyvio. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention. I liked the comment about the spring thaw. For most of March the temperatures were around -35C, way below normal. When it finally went up to -29 we were all commenting how nice it was. Yesterday it went right up to -18C, a right heat wave, sunstroke and tans. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

Hastings

Hi Grutness Since Hastings is my home Town, I have decided to take the article in hand. It is already headed "needs citations", but I am afeared it needs so much more! One of the irritations seems to be the work of a character called Kentem who seems, inter alia determined to make as many sub-articles as he can out of the governance of the town. He has set up articles for a dozen of them, adding very little to the information available, saying eg that Maze Hill, South St Leonards was a village, when it very obviously isn't. I guess there is no way to track him down, since he has no talk page? The only way out IMO is to merge them all with the main article (not there is much to merge) Peter Shearan (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lundycoin.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Lundycoin.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comments further up this page as to why it is clearly fair use. There's no arguing with Betacommandbot, though - it's doing more harm to WP than a host of vandals, but no-one seems prepared to stop it. Grutness...wha? 20:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Edit summaries can sure get monotonous eventually . . . glad I made you smile. :) -WarthogDemon 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map request

I've been talking to dramatic about location maps - you can see the conversation at Template talk:Location map#Usability Problem - clicking on Map. I've tried to create a map of Northland Region with an inset map of New Zealand, because a map of Northland Region by itself would not be sufficiently useful for many readers who wouldn't have knowledge of where Northland is in comparison to the rest of the country. The map I created is commons:Image:NZ-Northland plain map.png, and you can see the result at Houhora. The glue that sticks it together is Template:Location map Northland.

Now I'm no great shakes at creating maps, but I know you are, so could you create something similar to this map but looking good? Ideally I'd like a location map of each region in New Zealand, but just one of Northland would be a good start to test the concept. I plan to use the map for each community in Northland, and I also have some plans to customise it for the List of schools in Northland, New Zealand - you can see some musings on the subject at Talk:List of schools in New Zealand#Further improvements.

There's no great hurry on this; I can use the existing crude map for the time being, or the North Island map, and it will be easy to change articles over when a better map is available. Thanks,-gadfium 07:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that looks great.-gadfium 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cliffhangers AfD

Loved The Italian Job reference. All we have to do is turn the engine back on and wait...Plutonium27 (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) - Yup: start engine, burn off the petrol, thus re-distributing the weight to cause the coach to tip back towards the road side (and hope the bullion slides along with it). Ah well. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Films/Pedophilia

Hi Grutness,

There are four of these articles, and discussion is currently taking place at List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, as well as List of works for the theatre portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. I invite you to peruse the talkpages of these articles, and to look at the articles themselves (because all unsourced content is being removed until sources can be provided, for BLP reasons).-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: removing content from list articles

The list is too long to move to talk, and is available in the page history. I do not think it is necessary to reproduce the discussions on the other articles talkpages, indeed someone has suggested that they all be centralized on the talkpage of one article. There is no reason for the films list to be any different than theater, song, and books--and they currently all have everything removed which has not been sourced with a source that says they are specifically about sexual attrcation. Because this a controversial issue and because 1) works have been mistakenly included that had nothing whatsover to do with sexual abuse, pedophilia, or sexual attraction to children; I verified this myself on the theater article 2) at least one author has complained in writing re the inclusion of his book, making it very much a possible BLP issue, all unsourced works should be removed until sources are provided. The burden of including material rests on those who wish to include it, and far more than enough time has elapsed for sources to be provided, esp. considering the BLP issue. Please revert yourself (And if this is a subject that interests you, contribute to solving the problem by providing sources).-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my replies on your talk page (DEELIBERATELY there, not here. Please don't move my words back here again). Grutness...wha?

I believe that attributing pedophilia to work of art is a BLP concern even if you are not accusing the artist of being a pedophile, you are still characterizing his or her work. If you are going to do that you need references. If a write a book and I find it in a list of works about pedophilia, and there is no reliable, verifiable reference for its placement in that list, thats a BLP concern as far as I'm concerned, whether or not someone thinks I'm a pedophile or not. Referring to someone's work as being about pedophilia is a BLP concern, in my humble opinion.Mysteryquest (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Grutness...wha?

Replied: I didn't delete any of the lists. I just expressed my opinion as to whether or not listing an artistic work as about pedophilia without a reliable verifiable source was a BLP violation.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List articles

Hi Grutness,

You seem to be confused about the fact that your talkpage is not yours, and anyone may edit it. As I noted in my edit summary, I moved your response to me here to keep the discussion in one place, as the conversation started here.

1. If you would like to "comment out" the list, why don't you go ahead and do so, I don't know how to do that.
2. Jack-a-Roe has added a message to the talkpages of all article asking that the discussions be centralized.
3. I don't reccomend that you try to reinstate the lists, rather that you observe the standard by reverting yourself on the film article. I am going to speak to JzG about this.
4. You seem to be very confused about WP:V, which clearly states that the burden lies with the editor who wants to include the material. (And if you were following the discussion on the theater page, you would have noticed that I provided references for the works in that list.)
5. The problem with the lists isn't pedophilia or child abuse? at the moment, the problems are a) they are titled "sexual attraction" and refer almost entirely to works about abuse b) they are unreferenced.

-PetraSchelm (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on Petra's page. This discussion is now closed on this page - asny further edits placed here that are not comments original to this page will be deleted. Grutness...wha?

To Grutness, re: "paedophilia and child sexual abuse" entries

Yes, exactly: why are you continuing with this, except to be pointlessly argumentative? You seem stuck on trying to bicker about whether you were right or wrong, not on doing anything to improve the article. As I already stated, until the page was moved back to its prior name yesterday, even the one or two which were sourced had to be removed because the contents they sourced didn't match the list.-PetraSchelm (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Grutness...wha?

THANKS, Grutness, for keeping an eye on the Lists of (works portraying) pedophilia and child abuse. The editor who ignored your request not to move your comments on her Talk page back to your Talk page has now deleted your comments from her page, on the grounds that they were "duplicates". Since you clearly warned her that you would delete them here, if again moved from where you posted them, and have (quite properly) done so, I have restored them on her page, where you put them, so that they would at least be somewhere.

The point being that Talk pages need to provide all editors a convenient and transparent record of all useful discussion pertaining to the editing of Wikipedia entries. Otherwise, how can anyone see -- and have any hope of understanding -- what has happened? This concept, as you have probably noticed, eludes the editor in question. There is little evidence that she has reviewed the Talk pages of the entries she has so aggressively edited this week. (Indeed, similarly, she may not have read -- being clearly in a great hurry -- your comment above that you would be deleting your own words if pasted back here by anyone else.) She has seriously mischaracterized previous discussion over the "List of books . . . " entry's title -- but there seems little point to trying to correct her misstatements since she is apparently confident that she can deduce what happened without bothering to read through Talk pages.

In any case, your comments on her approach were entirely appropriate and, I thought, quite tactful under the circumstances. I am grateful that an administrator has taken an interest.

Based on better than a year's experience with the Books entry, I predict that sooner or later problems with over-broad definitions of "paedophilia" (especially) and perhaps "child sexual abuse" will re-emerge. We may well have further need for intervention by a thoughtful neutral administrator.

In the meantime I will confine myself to removing titles of books that do not reasonably fit the description of "portraying paedophilia or child sexual abuse". That is hard to do at present because all works higher than E in the alphabet have been deleted from the original entry but not placed on the Talk page. To edit further down the list than E will require, I guess, going back to an older version of the page, copying the section in question, pasting it into the Talk page, editing it, and then hoping that when someone finally puts Humpty-Dumpty back together again one's edits will be preserved.

The deleting editor is not wrong that the page needed much work. Her approach, however, has made a mess. I am very grateful that someone has been willing to say so. Now that the major battle -- over the title -- has (apparently) been decided, I notice that no one is racing to restore perfectly-well cited entries that fit the currently-protected title. Whereas if the article had not been gutted, it would now be easy to trim it appropriately. You were right to point out that gutting isn't the best approach. SocJan (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Grutness...wha?

Pete Wheeler

hi there Grutness

This is christopher david, (always with out capitals) aka edieco who created the Wiki for Pete Wheeler, I live here in Berlin and am working with Pete on his European exhibitions, I have known Pete for over 8 years from my time in New Zealand, to inviting him to Berlin Last year and now on his relocation here.

The text used was brought together from many texts written about Pete over the years and from many writers and then recopy written by a professional writer friend of mine from London who normally charges 200 pounds a day, I understand it may have been slightly poetic than factual for a wiki page, I need to make some changes regarding his current work, as things have moved along.

If you would like the latest on what Pete is working on please go to www.kolektev-berlin.com

Many thank for your contribution

Regards

chirstopher david

info@kolektiv-berlin.com

Sorry but please stop adding in the text about the red rose it has not been in Petes work since 2004 if you want to see pics of his last show from the end of 2007 I am happy to send them to you. The text you are using is not yours its off the milford gallery website.

Good morning James thank you for your contribution to Petes Wiki, I just want to show a couple of examples of how your re wording of text is miss representing Pete by claiming your opinion is 'non cited'

original version "The artist vents his frustration at the unsuspecting viewing public and their acceptance of image at face value" Your re-write "frequently using images taken from political propaganda as a basis for the venting of his frustration at the acceptance of this manipulative political tool"

Can you see how you have changed the original meaning, from looking at peoples acceptance of all imagery at face value, to now only refering to political imagery. Pete samples images from many and varied locations, such as music videos, art books, documentary photographers and yes political imagery, but I think it is too narrow and to only refer to the political imagery of his 2002 - 2004 period.

If you would like to write about Pete that is fantastic but I suggest you look at a the full body of his work and not just those shows that have been in Dunedin, A four page article about his debut Berlin show can be found in last years Art News. His only remaining gallery in New Zealand is Whitespace in Auckland and he will be sending work back for them to show in July.

I hope my tone has not been to harsh, but you will understand I have an interest in making sure artist that I work with are not misrepresented in the public domain.

Regards

Christopher

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.142.116 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteo stubs, request

Hi and thanks for your message about the stub confusion. If you have a moment, I'd also be grateful if you could revert a mistaken template page move I made a short while ago. It's currently listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves' "Uncontroversial proposals" section: Template:US national health institutes → Template:National Institutes of Health. I think it happened around the same time as the stubs, so I guess must've lost concentration. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDragon

You may want to add your userpage to Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons if you wish to have your name displayed on that page with other WikiDragons. Note that even though the link is red, the names are still displayed. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Good point. It looks as though it was not deleted unanimously, though. I think I'll abandon my project of inviting the users that link there, just to avoid causing riots. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]