Archives

2006-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14

... Tarc (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After you cast your "delete" vote regarding Victor Orsatti, the article has been substantially updated and revised. Given the extensive coverage Orsatti received in the mainstream press over the years, it appears that he does, in fact, pass WP:GNG. This may or may not cause you to alter your view, but you may want to take a second look. Cbl62 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in one detail as to your labeling. I don't think that it devolved or evolved into ranting or trolling. The original poster appears to have been a troll. Thank you for hatting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They keep coming back, unfortunately. New thread today. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. It looked ok so I didn't know. New improved. -- GreenC 02:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the petition stupid? Yes. Will the White House give any real consideration to the idea of deportation? No. Is it notable? I think yes. This stupid tool the WH provides got it's most reacted to response for this idea about this entertainer. It is worth mentioning. --Onorem (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to template you. 3rr. These are BLP issues that are covered by multiple reliable sources. I won't revert your last edit, but don't hide behind that. --Onorem (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarc, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tarc, sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious; what's stopping you from removing the image from the new article? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of faith that such a change would remain for very long. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I guess that makes sense, but then aren't you admitting that there is not consensus to remove the image? If there is no consensus to remove the image, then why do you want to delete the article for using the image, which, as of now, has consensus to remain on Wikipedia? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But really, don't you think that stuff about Hendrix likely being set-up is notable? The biggest rock star in North America and the highest paid performer in the world was likely framed for heroin smuggling. That's encyclopedic, not? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just tumble off the Wiki-Turnip Truck yesterday y'know, I know how the game is played; "consensus" is determined by who can shout louder and revert more than the other. You created the article to justify the image usage. I nominated the article for deletion because of both that bad-faith move and the fact that the "event" as it were is worth 1-2 paragraphs, not over-exposed and magnified into a separate article. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have great respect for you as an editor, but have you read 40+ books about Hendrix? The event is quite interesting, and there is a distinct possibility that he was framed. How about this, if I didn't include the mugshot would you still want the article deleted? I really wish that you had participated in the deletion discussions, because as it was, one or two editors might have swayed this so that DDD's non-closure might never have happened. Did you know that Hendrix was again arrested in Toronto when he returned for court? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would still want it deleted. I did give 2 rationales, y'know. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you think that if the Toronto article is deleted that Doc will just put the image back into the Hendrix article? Isn't it slightly more appropriate where it is now? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, what did you think of Masem and DDD's suggestion to "build-up the story of his drug use" to justify the image? Do you agree with that approach? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It strikes me as a form of assuming the conclusion, as you're looking to build up an article to support an image rather than writing an article first, then looking around for images to enhance it. I'm content at this point to just see what unfolds over the next week of the AfD, it's only been up for 7 hours and we still has a ways to go. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You're dodging the question. What did you think of Masem and DDD's suggestion to "build-up the story of his drug use" to justify the image? Because that's what will happen if the Toronto article is deleted. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Diffs would be helpful. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, its maybe a stretch to say that DDD is on board, but his FFD close says: "I note that there aren't other images related to his "drug use and violence." It may be fruitful instead to treat this as a content dispute, discussing on the article talk page what this image contributes to the overall article rather than focusing on its copyright status." After re-reading it just now it seems that Masem has misinterpreted DDD. As far as Masem pushing for more material devoted to drugs, look here and here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DDD, can you please clarify this situation. Masem has presented your FFD close as calling for more detail about Hendrix's drug use to justify the image. Is that accurate? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the subject has been brought up by the user at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header that you might find relevant as you have participated in past discussions about the use of {{pufc}}. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the latest edits on Amanda Knox by user Overagainst. I will not get involved in that heated discussion again as Overagainst simply is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with at this point as is evident by his remarks on the talk page and at the BLP noticeboard. Atleast take a look so the edits are right and non-biased. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look. I really hate this topic area, it's just a variant of the missing white woman syndrome. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the thread is banned sockpuppets having a field day. Original poster and pretty much every IP that follows (including 24.149.117.220, but I don't think they're a banned user) is a sock.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, there's quite a bit of nerdrage directed your way. I think there's some crossover to the attack spree on this DRV page, though I don't see what the connection is. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't including me in that drawer of socks there, Ryulong. :P I do have a regular account, but just don't log into it because I am perfectly content to edit with the limitations of an IP—unless there is a technical reason I need to login or disclose it per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Editing while logged out. However, that didn't prevent Verso.Sciolto and ChrisGualtieri from making a big stink about it last month. :/ 24.149.117.220 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I didn't participate there, but I also edit anonymously from time to time, to experience what the heathen have to put up with. It reminds me to treat IP addresses with more respect, when I find myself slipping. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but if there is a raging ANI fest going on that has to do with socking and IP users, it may not be terribly prudent for a genuinely innocent IP user to wade into it. Collateral fire is unfortunate, but it does happen. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert someone posts without discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.66.194 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent vandalism does not warrant discussion. You, however, will have to make your case on the talk page as to why a you feel the subject who has won a journalism award is, in fact, not a journalist. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tarc,

You nominated the above page for deletion because you felt that the subject of the article was not notable. I agree that the prior article did a poor job of establishing his notability, but I suggest that the subject, Dr. Cameron, is in fact notable.

I wrote a new version of the article in my Sandbox with the goal of demonstrating that a valid article could, in fact, establish his notability.

The new draft article is here: Draft:Brian_H._Cameron

On the basis of this, I'd like to proceed with a Deletion Review. However, I have two problems that I'd like your help with before I do.

a) I am a fairly novice Wikipedia editor. I'd like to get feedback on whether the page above is a good example of a Wikipedia article, written from an NPOV, with reasonable references, etc.

b) I have a conflict of interest. I know Dr. Cameron and have worked with him quite a bit. While I have no personal or financial interest in getting his page published, I have been told that my relationship with him is sufficient to qualify for COI. On that basis, I really shouldn't be making edits on a page about him, much less writing a page.

Could you please look at the article in my sandbox and let me know if (a) you feel that it does, in fact, establish his notability, and (b) if you would oppose my petition to review the deletion of his page? Nickmalik (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just not a notable individual. People skimming the refs may slide across the "interview by CNN" and perk up...for a second, til one realizes it is from CNN's iReport section, i.e. user-submitted articles for CNN to accept or reject. Tarc (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, CNN is an interesting, general interest media outlet, but Gartner Reports and A&G Magazine, of which there are numerous references, are far more respected than CNN. CNN sells their news reports for advertising. Gartner sells their reports to corporations for tens of thousands of dollars, based on the promise of fairness, equal treatment, and honest insight. The two reports cited CLEARLY state the notability of Dr. Cameron and what he has done by creating the first Enterprise Architecture degree program at an American university. In addition to being the author of over 40 works of juried research and two books? On that basis alone, I can challenge hundreds of other entries in Wikipedia.

You won't reconsider? Nickmalik (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN piece wasn't originated by CNN, that's the point; it is a submission from the public. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of existing Wikipedia bios in a similar situation as this guy, and all could be potentially deleted. If that were to happen, I couldn't be happier. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the reference to the iCNN interview. It was superfluous. The references that remain, to Gartner articles, to articles in A&G magazine, etc, should be sufficient to establish notability. Do you believe that Gartner citations are insufficient to establish notability? Nickmalik (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already voted on the latest BS there, thanks. Random IP trolls are just going to keep bringing up vote after vote til misogyny wins, so, whatever. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		For your extraordinary patience and unfailing civility at Talk:Muhammad/images, you are hereby awarded a green pointy thing with a cup in front. Rivertorch (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yay starz! Thanks. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tarc, so sorry. Did not mean to delete the other posts. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Due to this revision, you may want to have a look at User_talk:Uyvsdi#Removal_of_talk_page_posts. Thanks, Matty.007 19:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see, move along.

1. en.wikibooks.org

Tarc (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is done for you on en.wb, thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments here. Sorry, I know you prefer not to hear from IP editors, even though they're actual editors, too. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you're fine. I'm not as much of a d-bag as I used to be, butin the past I attracted a lot (like, a lot a lot) of harassment and such over edits and actions made here. So it's like an ingrown suspicion. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

	The Camel-flage award
	Correct: you are SO much smarter than they give you credit for. Well done. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange picture, all I see is grass and dirt. Tarc (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good job with attempting to explain that Nirvana has not reformed, that they are not currently active, and that the "active" section of the infobox ought not be altered at this time.  allixpeeke (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In arguing about climate change section given your interest in BLPs and politics etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ick, Monckton, something I've read a fair bit about wrt how he is treated/covered in the Wikipedia, but never delved into. Will try to look today, thx. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is a bit too strong. [2] Would you please consider refactoring it to avoid reference to editor's real life doings, and to avoid assumptions of bad faith. Wikipedia is not an I-P battleground. If other editors are baiting, don't fall for it! Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is rrue though, you know it. But fine, "New Tarc" doesn't turn down redaction requests, there just may be a slight grumble. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I sense that this mess will be heading for arbitration. A smart editor will be on best behavior under these circumstances. The willingness to strike a comment is a strong sign that you are a reasonable person and could save you a lot of grief. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you can't just lift text verbatim from a source, as you did from this NBC news site. Even if you cite the source, you still have to write the prose in your own words. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, the only words that as you put it were "lifted" were the direct quotes from the judges. The ruling was not made public yet. All other text was modified to make it my own. You CAN NOT change the words in a court order, it must be word for word... talk→ WPPilot  22:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]