User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2008 December

4
Archive 5
6
7
8

The Corley Conspiracy

Keep Notable work with requisite coverage. Also interesting (but not a requirement, as it's qualifies on its own) in relation to Mike Corley, Andy Dingley

How can Wikipedia possible be taken seriously by providing a platform for an obviouisly seriously sick and deluded individual? From the Wikipedia General notability guideline 'substantive coverage in reliable sources'. Do you seriously include decades of Usenet typing as reliable ? By what criteria does this qualify as a 'notable work', it belongs in the Fortian Times or the National Enquirer.

emacsuser (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP isn't "providing a platform for" him, although I agree your point that this would be a bad thing to do. WP isn't, on two grounds:

It's not advocating or defending his delusion, merely recording its existence and influence (vast spams, the opera). This is done in a strictly neutral manner, according to WP:NPOV
It's not a platform for him, it's the contributions of others. Although Mike Corley is welcome to contribute according to the general openness of WP, he hasn't been invited to (AFAIK) and doesn't appear to have done so. Nor do I expect that his contributions could be maintained within the constraints of policy, civil behaviour and WP:COI.

I regard "decades of Usenet" as reliable, although it's admittedly a primary source. We can't believe it's content, but we can use it to reliably demonstrate Corley's existence and persistence. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to John Blenkinsop

I've been looking for that for ages—thanks! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - I've a few others of that ilk too, but I'm slightly unsure about copyright status / license tagging for them on Commons. If you're familiar with this, your comments would be appreciated. Where do we stand on:

* an 1829 (?) engraving

* Reproduced in a 1958 booklet with HMSO / crown copyright (so the Crown Copyright 50 year lifetime might even apply)

* Scanned by myself, now

Are we clearly OK for Commons use by the sheer age of the original? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of my early uploads to Commons were not accepted and I'm still not confident: you're asking the wrong contributor, really. However, this image from a British Transport Commission publication from 1957 was uploaded last January, citing the Crown Copyright 50-year rule, and hasn't caused any comment since, so material from the 1958 HMSO booklet should be OK after the end of this month. This old image on Commons has two tags, one based on publication in the U.S. before 1923 and the other applying to an author dead for at least seventy years: we should be safe with an 1829 image! These tags are offered as dropdowns during the upload process. Good luck. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm safe on the 1829 stuff, but there are some more recent ones in the same book that I'd like to use. In a week or two they should be doubly into the PD, but just which tag to use to annotate them is another question. I'm tired of Commons admins who delete stuff that's clearly PD, just because they don't like the way in which this is expressed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Scouse culture of the early 1980s

I have nominated Category:Scouse culture of the early 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SilkTork *^YES! 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this do?

User warning template for your recent <blink>appalling vandalism</blink> to Wikipedia.
Usually I use {{Uw-vandalism1}}, but your case was particularly heinous. Don't do it again (for at least another year).
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I promise not to do it again this year. (bears in mind that the Orthodox Church has Christmas on January 6...) Totnesmartin (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockall

Please go and take a look at the talk page. Another editor, who seems to have disappeared, added a set of dimensions without deleting the less specific ones.... I have left a thoroughly rude message which that person will probably never see, because they said goodbye to Wikipedia shortly after, but as you, Andy Dingley, editted the page immediately after them, without noticing and correcting their error and thereby setting it in little pixels for ever after, my horrible message now awaits your return! ;-) Amandajm (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Planet Wilson

I'll take your word for it, you're a good-faith guy; but the article as written doesn't even tell me that they are a band, much less where they're from, or what they play. It also lacks those little things that mean a lot, like, y'know, sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Mike, but isn't this what tagging is for? There's no "problem" with this article that means we have to get rid of it, so there's really no earthly need to delete it 15 minutes after it was tagged as being lacking in quality. That doesn't help anyone who might do the mundane copyediting it needs. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]