User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

hlist

Hi. The above is helpful. Note that you will often have to fuss with things further, as there are a lot of oddly marked-up templates. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report, too. Another other useful one is class="plainlist" (and if needed {{plainlist}}). Alarbus (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am interested in fixing nav boxes and I put the call for the script on my page as you suggested, but I am not sure what changed. This script somehow formats old boxes to the new way, right? I cannot find documentation on using it and so far I have not figured it out on my own. I really appreciate your bringing this to me; could you further help by explaining how I should use it? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
You should now have a little drop menu with 'hlist' on it. Go to some old-school navbox, and click it. It will usually get you much of the way to the new system. fyi, I watched this page (i.e. I don't need talklbacks). Alarbus (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Amazing. It works so well. Thank you so much - I was going to do this manually. I gave you the talkback because you sort of seemed like a new user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank the author (WOSlinker), and [[User:Edokter}}, who did the code behind hlist. Script-assisted is certainly the way to go. I also have external tools. I've been building websites for a long time; this one needs help, so I'll see how it goes. Alarbus (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I just thanked both of them. I do not know much about scripts and I use few tools for editing, but I want to know more. What are you reading and where are you going to stay up to date on what editors should be using to more efficiently edit? I just edited a lot of nav boxes and the output seemed okay to me, and now I am wondering what else I could do more quickly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been tagging along on the templates you've been editing. You should check the fixes I made. The script doesn't get everything; you have to check, and make some tweaks yourself.
I watchlisted a huge number of templates, like {{navbox}}. When discussion occurs, I'll notice. You can look at what people have in their .js files; see their edits and edit summaries. If they're doing something useful, you can find the scripts they're using. There are more listed, somewhere... looks... Wikipedia:User scripts. Try these:
importScript('User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js');
importScript("User:GregU/dashes.js");
Alarbus (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh. These two edits look the same except for invisible whitespace. How do you detect and remove extraneous spaces?

I was checking out the categories for navboxes and it seems that the infrastructure may be underdeveloped because here on Category:Navigational boxes I am finding categories which seem appropriate but still the system is insufficient because I am not finding them easily. I am having doubts about the utility of this because it seems like having navbox categories will just mirror many extant mainspace categories, and then if there is some other meta-article type which also needs categorization then it may fork again. Many navboxes do not use categorization, so that makes me think maybe this practice is not solidified. I am not seeing a directive to categorize here on Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Is categorizing navboxes helpful? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Advisor.js will offer links to fix most such white-space issues. It doesn't offer to help you change lines otherwise ending in '=' as most often those are unfilled template parameters and by leaving the space, subsequent editors are more likely to leave it, which improves the readability of the wiki-text. Some people likeomittingspaces but that's not really helpful.
Besides Advisor.js, you can often see trailing white-space simply by selecting 'all' in the editbox (Firefox, at least; not Chrome, and probably not Safari — would have to check). I use external tools, too, which greatly ease such tasks.
Categorisation is very useful and templates are no exception. I was part-way through fixing the contents of Category:Brazil municipality templates, yesterday, and will finish them soon. I saw you comment to the effect that you were going to 'fix' (hlist) all the templates you've worked on, which is great. But why stop there? I see a need to fix them all. There's a request pending to have a bot do this, which will eventually get a lot done. But the mess is years-deep and bots will only get the straightforward cases. Editors need to do the non-straightforward ones, and by doing templates that appear on other peoples' watchlist, you teach the method and need. Isn't this how you learned of this? If several hundred editors get on this, it will largely be accomplished in fairly short order. The impetus for this was WP:Accessibility, which is an excellent reason. But the massive reduction of the page-generation burden all these {dot} templates impose on the web servers will benefit everyone. And 99.9% of 'everyone' are general readers without wiki-accounts. Alarbus (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I responded on your page - I said that I will get to exploring this but not now, and after I do I will report back. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


The Blade of the Northern Lights RfA

Hi Blueraspberry. I'm just letting you know that there is absolutely no policy whatsoever that users, whatever their status, are compelled to maintain a talk page. Your vote is therefore not valid reason to oppose a candidate for adminship and a demonstration of your good faith would be regarded very highly by the community. RfA is largely a broken process due to the standard of voting (on both sides). Please help us to repair, improve, and maintain RfA as a necessary process, and andfor it to be more encouraging to those who are staying away from because of its current climate. If you have views on how to achieve this, you are most welcome to take part in discussion at WP:RFA2011. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are talking about this RfA. One of the problems with RfA is that sometimes voters get criticized for their votes without having their points considered. I wrote enough on that RfA for you to refute something I said if you wanted to do so; the policy I am going to cite is WP:NICE. I assert that the candidate for adminship has a userpage which is disrespectful to visitors by standards of contemporary international etiquette because he uses profanity in his introduction and he is unaware that this is not respectful to many people who will visit his page.
Thank you for the link to WP:RFA2011. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Kudpung, you seem to be arguing that for an oppose vote to be valid at an RfA it must demonstrate that the candidate has broken a policy or rule? That sounds completely absurd, is it what you meant? To the rest of your point, I think RfA would be much more pleasant if oppose voters were not heckled so much by people who disagree with them. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think what he means is that his oppose isn't grounded in the relevant guideline, but is rather based on his personal thoughts and feelings. Since it's my RfA, all I'll say on whether that makes it invalid is 無 (put it in the search box). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've seen evidence that the header to BNL's talk page actually advances, rather than hinders, the cause of strengthening the project. Editors involved in content disputes (on both sides of the disputes) have used the page as a place to shed frustrations that are interfering with their ability to exhibit collegiality or assume good faith. The profanity or obscenity in the header is best seen as a device well-practiced in other forms of writing, both fiction and non-fiction. It's called "hyperbole". Unless we are to go back to the days when the publisher of Norman Mailer's first novel, The Naked and the Dead replaced a common four-letter word for sexual congress with bowdlerization - in this case the nonsensical term "fug" - I think criticism of BNL's verbiage is misinformed. On the other hand, the violence done to the original editions of Mailer's book did give rise to one of the funniest introduction stories ever told. Upon meeting Mailer for the first time, Tallulah Bankhead greeted him by saying "Ah yes, you're the young man who doesn't know how to spell 'fuck'." David in DC (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the art of his prose but I have an agenda on this site to represent certain communities. In real life, I go in person and convince professors at universities and scientists in research institutes to support Wikipedia by having students, junior researchers, and outreach staff contribute to Wikipedia. When outsiders come into the project and I give them a tour of the site, these people - my community - are not the sort of people who want to see language which does not meet international professional etiquette standards on the page of a Wikipedia user who has a leadership role. Definitely I am representing a minority interest and what BNL does may be for the greater good, but I have to vote for my interests and the interests of the community with which I identity. If you have further questions then please let me know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
My questions would really be for the people you're aiming to welcome. You may be underestimating them. My questions would be: Have you read The Naked and the Dead? Do you think the syllable "fug" or the word "fuck" belongs in it?
I'd have serious questions about the judgment of anyone who !voted for "fug" and wonder whether bending the community's conversational style to their tender sensibilities was in the best interests of the project. David in DC (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I have not read the book, but the word "fuck" belongs in that book because it is part of the art and presentation appropriate for that kind of media.
I work with research professionals, and more specifically medical researchers studying anal sex at hospitals and research institutes. It is not about "tender sensibilities" and they certainly are not going to be offended; it is about projecting professionalism. It is a respect and competence issue and the potential offensiveness of profanity is totally unrelated. People who swear when they are making a first impression are taking a gamble and more often than not will project incompetence. Can you see my point of view? If you were trying to sell someone something or requesting resources from an institution, would you use profanity within the first minute of meeting them or would you make a conscious effort to not use profanity? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I used to be a P.R. guy for the Teamsters. Using the more vulgar word for "making love" in the first minute of a meeting was practically required. Nevertheless, I do see your point. It ain't worth bickering over any further. Instead, I've taken up your unrelated invitation on my talk page. Thanks. I've tried my hand on one live article, Housing quality and health outcomes in the United States. Please review my edits and let me know if they're what you're looking for. If they are, I'd be happy to continue. Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to my problem. Since what you are doing is a separate issue and because the conversation started on your page, I replied there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No offense and RfA Reform

Hi

I just wanted to leave you a quick note, expressing my hope that you didn't feel offended by any of my comments in response to your recent RFA Oppose !vote. It certainly was no part of my intention to cause any offense. I apologise if I did so. You mentioned that you were "appreciating all the feedback", so I thought, while I am here, I should also leave you a link to some subsequent discussion, at Wikipedia_talk:RfA_reform_2011/Voter_profiles#The_Miller_test. Also, my compliments on your User pages - you certainly project the welcoming and friendly image you argue for. Begoon talk 12:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry/jumpqueue

Hello Bluerasberry, I saw your request over at the village pump. I have noticed that there are a large number of student submissions at AfC. I'll try and clear out the AfC backlog and review the student submissions. After I am done with that, I will take a look at the live articles, and see what I can do. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Eventually I need to talk to someone about whether it would be good to develop a process for allowing certain groups to jump the queue. I feel like this energy being expended in classrooms ought to get special attention. I am not sure yet where the conversation is about this, but only know that I want to do what I can to make sure that Wikipedia makes a good first impression. Thank you so much and write me anytime if you need a favor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
If WP:WikiProject Open Access works then this barnstar will become a lot more meaningful to me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited GlobaLeaks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BitTorrent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Open access collaboration

Hello, Bluerasberry. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I sent it a few days ago, but wanted to follow up to make sure you received it. – Pnm (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just replied. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dan Grech-Marguerat new Submission

Hi,

Please bear with me I'm new to wikipedia submission. Many thanks for recently reviewing my submission for the above producer. I've added a reference to his work from the BBC Music review of the recent Foe Album, it's quite hard to find direct reference to him as a producer as the front men of the band / group often take up the review space. Do you feel this would be enough to get through the submission process or would you advise I keep looking. I also wasn't sure whether or not to come back to the original reviewer or just to resubmit when I think I'm ready.

Once again thanks for your support, feedback and patience.

mark / LTFC4ever2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.182.246 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not just about getting through the submission process. Wikipedia is continually revised, so if you get info which indicates that the person meets notability criteria, then that means the article will remain but someone else will review it to verify all the unsourced information. Almost the entire article is unsourced; a request for references will be there for a while even if the article does get approved, then everything without a reference will be deleted. You should have a reference for every statement in the article.
You can come back to me if you like, but if you just resubmit then someone else will review it. Most reviewers just review content in their free time or to take a break for a few minutes from their regular jobs, so you are likely to get a different reviewer every time. I think any of them would tell you what I just did. If you do not understand and want to talk on the phone about this then email me at the menu on the left and I will send you my phone number. I am in America time zone PST. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

AFC

Hi, I'm always happy when I see that a new reviewer helping us out with our really big backlog at the AFC project. If you want to help us out regular, I really advice you to "install" our JS AFC helper tool which you can find at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js. It informs the submitter automatically and doing other really useful stuff which aren't all mentioned in the reviewing guides. (sadly, but they need really an update!). Regards, mabdul 13:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me this. I just used it to review a lot of articles. I want to use this for a while, then after I am comfortable with it I will find time to update the guides. Thank you so much for bringing this to me - I think if more people knew about this tool then more people would get involved in AFC. Can you check my contribution history and review a few of my AFC reviews? I think the tool is self-evident, but maybe you know something I do not. Can you tell me that everything is cool about the way I am using it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
FYI: I overturned your decision at Robin Saunders; please recheck the refs! They are useful and he is notable, yes I think the refs are not the best, but at least 3 better ones. Next time do a short google search on the existing references and find the online examples! (the big ones are mostly online, except the ft.com bad one: bad murdock!) mabdul 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It is amazing how much time I spend on this site and still people like you point out to me new ways of looking at things. Yes, of course, I should have used Google to sort the references. Now that you have cleaned up the references it is obvious that the person is notable and the article is great. I will definitely do this in the future. Thanks for the feedback. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Article about George Gerstman

Thank you for your comments. I can use your help. I don't understand why the verifyability is a problem -- every reference except for the first part of the first reference is from an independent third party and had no input from George Gerstman. As to nobility, could you be more specific about what is missing? Thank you. Patentee (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at some of what you have written.

Gerstman was the trailblazer in having the copyright laws apply to video games and computer games. In 1981 he led the battle by video game manufacturers to have the courts declare video games to be protectable by copyright.[1][2]

  1. ^ Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852 (2nd Cir., 1982), see attorney names on first page(http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7204019639108685629&q=stern+electronics+v.+kaufman&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14)
  2. ^ D. G. Small, "Stemming the Tide of Video Game Piracy: Copyright Protection for the Audiovisual Displays,Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman", 49 Brooklyn Law Review 889-909 (1982)(http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/brklr49&div=42&g_sent=1&collection=journals)

The first reference is a court document. It verifies that Gerstman was counsel for the plaintiff, but it does not verify that he was a trailblazer or that this case was a leading battle for any particular end. The document gives an outcome of the court case, and not a review of the impact. I have not read the second source in entirety, but I see in the intro that it says that the court found that "copyright in the underlying computer program is not the only source of protection"; I think the court is saying that the computer code has protection and the audio/video has protection, just as it would if it were a movie or book. In any case I am not seeing that this assessment is about Gerstman's role specifically, but if I missed something can you provide a reference with the page number?

In the second paragraph you say, "lead attorney in the first court decision concerning copyrightability of software embodied in a read-only memory" but the reference does not call him a lead attorney and the information about this being the first court decision is taken from a short quote by Gerstman himself, and it is not permissible for someone to verify their own facts except for the least controversial details.

Without third-party journalism about such things it is hard to verify the details. At the bottom of the article the information about his represented clients is completely unverified.

The ideal source for you to provide is a third party review of his life written by an independent journalist. A published interview would be great. You do not have to have me review this again or take my opinion. Feel free to make changes as you like and propose it again; others will have their own opinions but I think many people would say what I said. If you have more questions then email me and we can talk by phone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
Message added 02:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My user page

Hi there, many thanks for your comments at my RFA regarding my user page - what kind of stuff so you have in mind? Regards, GiantSnowman 09:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do campus ambassador work and a lot of real-life outreach telling non-Wikipedians about Wikipedia. This means that I see new users going to userpages often, because their first see their own then they want to know what other people are doing. My userpage is not perfect, but when I sit with someone and show it to them at least it gives them a good idea of what kinds of things they ought to be able to ask me and expect my interested response.
I have a lot of concern for new users who find an experienced Wikipedian and then do not know what to do at their userpage. If you vote on an AfD for a new user, and that was their first article, and your userpage is one of the first userpages they ever see, is their experience on your userpage going to contribute to their wanting to join the Wikipedia project as a contributor?
When I was a new editor, the first problem I had was wondering what to do and where I fit in. On my userpage I go through descriptions of what I like, and then at the end of that description, I ask people to write me if they like what I do. This is my solution. You can have a radically different solution, or you can stay the same and that also is attractive to a certain demographic, but I feel like most people respond most positively to userpages which say something about that editor's current projects, say something about how that editor helps other users who visit, and makes a request for users to do something. Congratulations on adminship. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

South African alt.country singers

Dear Blue Raspberry

In the discussion about whether to delete the above category you claim that "There is only one entrant in this category and reliable sources do not even exist to put him in this category". Would you explain this please, as most of the sources I quote in the Jim Neversink article, e.g. The South African Times, The Mail & Guardian, Beeld, Billboard and a printed book, seem to me to meet all the requirements of reliable sources. If you look through them, you will see that almost each and every one uses terms like Americana, alt.country, Africana, country-punk, country-rock. I have not made explicit references to sources stating his musical category, but I thought that would be obvious from the section on "Influences and musical style".

I'm always interested in improving articles I work on, so do let me know what made you post your comment.

SkaraB 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to the original discussion? I do not see a South African section at Category:Alternative country singers by nationality.
I remember checking the cited sources by doing a keyword search of the article and not finding a matching reference. You use many terms here - "Americana, alt.country, Africana, country-punk, country-rock". If the article does not specifically say "alt country " or "alternative country", then I would not support categorizing anyone as such, even if you are taking other terms to be equivalent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Bluerasberry
The link to the discussion is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_6#Category:South_African_alternative_country_singers
The references listed as no 22 (The Times' Magazine), 23 (Billboard), 47 (Beeld), 49 (GQ), specifically say "alternative country" or "alt country", while others say "americana" or American roots music, or country-rock, or country-infused punk. Anyhow, alt. country as is well known is used by many as a synonym for americana, so even if there are experts who make a distinction, whatever is meant will depend on the individual journalist's usage, and on the Wiki-writer's interpretation of the article in question.
82.143.197.121 (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkaraB (talk • contribs)
There are a few things happening in the Jim Neversink article. One, Wikipedia has to be verifiable so sources have to say exactly what is put into the article. If a source says "Americana (music)" and you say that is a synonym for "Alternative country", then that is WP:SYNTHESIS of information because you are making new information from different existing pieces of information. Wikipedia does not allow WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH of this sort because Wikipedia is not a place to discuss any article's subject; only the article and sources may be discussed. Another problem is that on this page the artist has a designated genre then the albums have sometimes the same genre listed. If possible, every sentence and every fact on Wikipedia should have a reference after it. This is especially true if you are going to repeat similar information in different contexts, and on Neversink's article, his genre and his albums' genres are listed multiple times. You list certain numbered references above, but I see other sources in the article being cited to verify this person's genre. If you put all the genre information in one place, then put all the references in that one place, then you will have made a good argument for the musicians genre.
One last thing - many people come to Wikipedia in their youth because they are interested in pop icons. These people frequently become Wikipedia:GENRE TROLLs, which most editors do not feel is useful. This is why the hard rules are in place. Questions? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, many thanks for your reaction, as I said, I am always happy to improve my work! Next time I edit the article I will make some clear references, in the section "Influences and musical style" and under each album, to articles that state the genre.

Not sure if this is the right place to discuss categories - but I wanted to say that even if categories with only one member are problematic, right now an alt.country singer can only be listed as such if (s)he is American or Canadian - assuming that English, Swedish and Australian have to be deleted since they only have one or two members each? This means that we cannot look up French or Polish artists. That seems like a pity to me. It also means that if someone writes a new article, and there is no pre-existing category, then one would have to search Wikipedia randomly to see if there were other potential entrants, before one could establish a category.

Should I take this problem elsewhere..?

SkaraB 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. I am working with some Wikipedia researchers at the University of Washington in my city Seattle in the United States. They are information scientists who want to improve Wikipedia's categorization system, and they are looking for relatively new users who are interested in categorizing articles but who are having difficulty because of non-intuitive systems. It sounds like you are exactly the kind of person with which they want to talk. How would you feel about me giving them your contact information? They will probably want to call you.
I apologize - this really is not an immediate solution to your problem, but it may be a way to participate in a solution. I could try to answer your questions, but if you are interested in this research, then perhaps that route is the first one to try. How do you feel about this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like fun to me, and a good way to get closer to a solution as you say :-) They are welcome to get in touch. SkaraB 10:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I wrote to the researcher and forwarded her email to you by email.
There definitely are problems with Wikipedia's categorization system, and there are no entirely satisfactory solutions to most problems. I think you are correct and I am wrong - it is better to categorize people even in small categories than it is to just delete the categories, assuming that the categories can eventually be expanded. The problem you raise about new articles is valid.
I am not sure what is best. The precedent is to categorize people by country and occupation, and that discussion is here. In the case of musicians, I would expect also to see a category describing their genre, but I was not expecting to see nationality tied to that. It seems that sometimes it is though. Usually I would not expect to see multiple categories all tied to the location, but I do not know rules about when this happens and when it should not.
I am sure that when a category has lots of members, and when the category above it in the hierarchy also has lots of members, it is not likely to be proposed for deletion. This category seems close to what you wanted Category:Alternative country musicians by nationality but even it is scarcely populated.
I am sorry I do not have better answers. I can give you feedback on particulars if you ask me to in the future, but apparently I do not know as much as I thought I did. If you want other opinions, check at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people - that is where I would go for help. Cool for now? Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - definitely cool for now, thanks for thinking this issue over, and sorry for taking so long to respond, I got caught in in other stuff!

SkaraB 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month March meetups

Maybe you'd like to consider organizing a Seattle meetup in March for Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month :)--Pharos (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - that will be the theme for the March monthly meeting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Article for creation

Morning,

I received a denial of posting message from you on the article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/WorcesterScene, citing no reliable sources. I am not sure what I should be doing instead; many sources are from the newspaper, TV news, and other mainstream media. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.147.205 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please review the notability criteria for websites. I did not check all your references, but I checked a few. The Youtube video is great because it is an interview about this website. I fixed the link in these sources
If you check the criteria listing I linked above, you can see that the intent of providing sources is to show that a website listed in Wikipedia has been the subject of review and not just a mention as a part of another story. I feel that these sources are just being used to cite incidental features of the website, and that it would be better to use a single source which actually reviewed website functionality. Can you point out a source for which the website is actually the subject focus? I did not check all your sources, so I could be wrong. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Porngate

Request you to revert yourself on the articles on the former Karnataka ministers/MLAs. Porngate is not a suitable title for the article and possibly fails the notability test for events. It is not a good idea to link to pages and make allusions to a scandal in a BLP when verifiable sources can only present speculation and analysis, with the subjects of the articles disputing the fact that they were actually watching porn videos. Once the articles develop further, then the content may be restored in a manner that qualifies for a WP:BLP. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we talk about this on the talk page of Porngate? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to move this discussion there. Also, it is not a good practice to re-insert material back in to a biographical article without appropriate conclusion of a discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I moved this to the talk page there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Spring zouk.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spring zouk.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem and the Fae RfC

Bluerasberry, in my opinion, your comment accusing others of homophobia and harassment ("Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues") I have listed in this section in relation to the Fae RfC constitute an ad hominem attack on the drafters of the RfC. Since ad hominem arguments attack the character of the person (in an attempt to damage the credibility of their message), I believe such debate tactics violate WP:NPA. Also, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus provides little help in addressing the validity of the issues raised in the statement of dispute. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments in the future. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of this "warning", which Cla68 is spamming to multiple editors, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors. Please feel free to comment on this issue on that page. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your interest in keeping Wikipedia a safe place. Thank you for fairly presenting me and being thorough in linking to my edit in question - here again is the statement to which you pointed. I respectfully disagree that this is an ad hominem attack. I stand by my evaluation - "Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues". If there is anything about my response which shows that I am misunderstanding your point, I would be happy to further clarify. Even though we have not previously met, I have seen you around for years and you are an awesome editor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry/hindu terror

Hi, I would recommend that you have this page deleted from your user space as it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please see WP:USER and WP:NOTWEBHOST. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluerasberry/Archive_4"