User talk:Father Goose/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For making very smart edits to Wikipedia:Just drop it, and thereby making my raw idea in stream-of-consciousness form into something Wikipedians would actually find useful, I hereby present you with this Editor's Barnstar. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:57, 21 Mar 2008 (UTC)

"I have received a satisfactory answer on a different page, and am content to shelve this thread." — May I ask which page?

Kim's.--Father Goose (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Synthesis on video games... And thanks for your help. Are you pretty involved with editing and clarifying the policy pages? Because if you are, I'd really like to see WP:SYN clarified/amended to explain what we've been talking about in this policy page. Can you explain the process behind this? I don't want to start changing longstanding policy. Let me know. Policywonker (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help at Wikipedia talk:Synthesis on video games. I've put together a strawman proposal, based on some of the things you said. Is there a process for changing wikipedia policy like this? At what point do we know when a proposal is ready to implement, and how do we go about it? Hoping to hear your feedback. Policywonker (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing policy is hard, except when it isn't. From what I understand, the SYN portion of WP:NOR has been batted around a lot, since the advice it gives is not terribly clear. NOR in general has been the site of many an edit war. Certain people set up camp to defend parts of it that match their opinions and it becomes hard to alter stuff that might not even have majority approval, let alone "

consensus

", whatever that is.

If I were taking on the battle, I'd post to Wikipedia talk:No original research and first scout out whether or not the "Kenny dies" example is considered to be SYNTH (or even OR). I'm sure some people will say so, but if there isn't wide agreement on it, then that interpretation is demonstrably invalid (policies must represent consensus positions).

Then, if it's clear that that interpretation of SYNTH is invalid, you could start suggesting small changes to the wording of SYNTH (maybe an added sentence) to make it clear that it does not refer to "accurate summarizing descriptions of multiple sources" (or something like that). If you manage to get a reasonable degree of agreement for that, you could then edit in the change. Then it would probably get reverted by those who insist that SYNTH applies to anything not explicitly stated in a secondary source.

Then you'll have to spend the next few years figuring out how to get past such editors, who are in essence practicing a form of filibuster. I'm only barely learning how to make small policy changes "stick", here and there.

However, once in a while, when you propose something reasonable, most people agree that it's reasonable, and you can make a change that doesn't result in a war. I don't anticipate you will have an easy time with the changes you seek to make to SYNTH, but since the changes should be made, try anyway. Good luck; I'll keep an eye on the situation and offer additional counsel if possible.--Father Goose (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If any of you have some time to spare, could you look over Monty Hall problem#Solution and Monty Hall problem/draft#Solution (just the solution section) and offer your opinion about which is more understandable at talk:Monty Hall problem? Much obliged.--Father Goose (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I am really sorry for tagging

No need to apologize. I've removed the page from the list of disambigs.--Father Goose (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an opinion, please voice it here. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we fought the good fight and lost. Thanks for your support. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I knew that one in particular was going to be lost, but I always like sharpening my arguments, because there'll always be another battle.--Father Goose (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Could you please take a look at this version and let me know what you think (it's yet another new version)? The decision tree will become a graphic eventually. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on other comments here I gather you might be otherwise occupied, but if you could take a look at Monty Hall problem/draft#Solution (just the solution section, not the entire draft) and let me know what you think, I'd really appreciate it. Compared to the current version in the article the main points are to re-orient your graphic based on the location of the car rather than the player's car/goatA/goatB choice, and follow up the "unconditional" analysis with a conditional analysis using a (referenced) decision tree (which eliminates the need for the existing "Decision tree" section). Note the decision tree precisely matches the large graphic and the player's choice is always Door 1, so everything in the entire Solution section is consistent (this isn't true in the current version). All the images are svg (I've figured out how to run Inkscape). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, again, I'm dragging my feet on my reply to that. To really do it justice, I'd need to spend a lot of time analyzing and commenting on it, but it's not where I want to focus my energies at this time.

I will say (or ask) this, though: why switch to a car-location instead of player-choice layout?--Father Goose (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, I guess you just answered that -- for consistency's sake (the player always picks Door 1 in all the other given examples.

In isolation (i.e., not needing to be consistent with the other examples), I feel that a constant set of doors has a more physically intuitive feel to it: here's the situation (car goat goat), and two of three choices you can make will win when switching.

I'd suggest asking some of the people who recently commented on the current graphic whether they think the draft one is equivalent. If they find it equally understandable, then I'm fine with switching it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Aside from internal consistency, the two other reasons to switch to a car-location based diagram are because:

1. this is how the solution is presented in nearly all references (I can't think of a single one that isn't fundamentally based on the car location). I haven't added a reference for the first part of the solution section (yet) - I'm considering referencing one of Marilyn's Parade columns (or her book - which I've ordered from Amazon but don't have yet).
2. the car/goatA/goatB version essentially precludes a conditional analysis (it's very difficult to go from this explanation to the conditional one)

BTW - I agree the constant car/goat/goat arrangement and varying the player's choice is very intuitive. Whenever you get a chance, I suspect you might find the Krauss and Wang paper quite interesting. It's a reasonably recent experimental psychology paper that attempts to answer why people so often arrive at the wrong answer. I haven't gotten around to it yet, but I want to add a "psychology of this problem" section (not sure exactly what the section title should be). There have been numerous psychology studies about it. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you also feel that the car-goat-goat layout is the most intuitive, I really question the value of changing it. Nobody has yet complained that the illustration gives the wrong answer or is inconsistent with the other examples in the article. I'd place readers' ability to understand the explanation ahead of other concerns.

Incidentally, I've been quite gratified about the compliments the illustration has received recently. I've been under the impression that the number of "this article is wrong" complaints on the talk page have dropped off since it was added. The one problem I haven't quite licked with it is the occasional impression that the host-reveals-either-goat probabilities are 1/4, not 1/6. (I briefly put 1/6s in there, but that requires the stipulation that the host will always choose randomly between them, which is irrelevant to the unconditional explanation.)--Father Goose (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the intuitive difference between the car-goat-goat layout and the one based on the car's location is large - and I think it's definitely not a good idea for our main presentation to not easily lead to a conditional analysis. I realize we're not quite on the same page about this (perhaps that's an understatement), but I am at this point nearly in complete agreement with the basic point "anon-many-ips" raised several weeks ago which is that the problem as typically stated requires a conditional analysis. In my search for references (responsive to the FAR), I've read a fair number of papers about the problem by now. Virtually every serious mathematical article about it (and most of the experimental psychology ones as well) distinguish between the unconditional and conditional approaches, and make the point that the problem as typically posed is asking the conditional question. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But we have to reconcile that with the apparent fact that most explanations of the problem, when it appears in non-mathematical publications, are unconditional. It explains the underlying paradox in a less muddled (and still correct) way, although it is mathematically wrong if one does not distill the question as asked back into an unconditional form.--Father Goose (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the approach should be to present an unconditional analysis clearly identified as such, using words like "on average" or "over all players", but then to immediately follow this up with a conditional analysis. The Solution section in the draft I keep pointing you to has this structure. I think making the transition understandable pretty much requires reworking the unconditional analysis to be car-location centric (which is why I've changed this in the draft - it makes the correspondence between the unconditional analysis and the conditional analysis readily apparent). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in love with the explanation of the conditional analysis provided there. It's not as clear as it could be. But to improve it, I'd probably have to rewrite it myself, which is not a trivial task, so for now I'm overlooking it.

I do accept the approach of providing both unconditional and conditional solutions, however.--Father Goose (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That ridiculously long list is looking somewhat shorter and less irrelevant now... 78.86.18.55 (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you misunderstand my quotation from the template on the top of the WP:CIV article itself as a unilateral demand? I'm trying to understand what made you bring up the block of another user. To me, this was out of the blue. Antelan^talk 02:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I do see people sometimes say things to the effect of "don't edit policy or guideline pages unless you have consensus first", and I believe that is more or less what you said regarding WP:CIV. It's just the wrong advice, for the reasons I outlined in my post, and it is unenforceable, as the Ottava case demonstrates.

This may seem to contradict what the Policy and Guideline templates say. They state the case too conservatively, though that is preferable to stating it too liberally ("Sure, change this policy any way you like!"). The best way to determine consensus for an action is simply to take it and see if there is opposition to it. (If there is, then discuss it instead of fighting over it.) One should never assume that there will be opposition to an action taken in good faith, especially one that is easy to undo. This even applies to policy changes.

This may or may not come as a surprise to you. It is, however, true. What is on policy pages should represent consensus, to be sure. However, this does not mandate the formation of consensus prior to editing such pages. Consensus is best formed through the process of editing (which does not include edit-warring). Requiring that consensus be formed or tested in advance of editing is a bureaucratic way of sealing a page in stone, and paradoxically ensures that it will fail to reflect consensus, due to the fact that

consensus can (and does) change.--Father Goose (talk

) 02:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is one opinion, and mine is another. Truth, though? Even I don't claim to have that. For what it's worth, I did take your reference of the blocked user as a veiled threat. Try an alternate approach the next time, before bringing up the specter of blocks, and you might get a warmer response. Antelan^talk 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it wasn't intended as a threat. Sorry 'bout that. I'll be careful to avoid that implication in the future.--Father Goose (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the clarification. Nice work with the userbox debacle; if it's held for 5 minutes, even after multiple comments, I have high hopes that it will hold indefinitely. +1 point for your approach... Antelan^talk 03:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this will give us a chance to see how your suggested approach works. I'll be taking notes (whether successful or not). Regards, Antelan^talk 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Coolio.--Father Goose (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Good solution, right off. I re-edited the userbox to read "This user believes in One God." The "Allah" is already there in the Arabic, that's what it says. Of course, the actual text is up to each user if they don't like the default.

As to the idea that there was some panic here, there are two dead representatives of Penguin Books, and quite a few others died over Satanic Verses. Now, there, there were intellectual freedom issues, and I happen to think the whole affair tragic and ironic, because few even noticed what Satanic Verses actually was: a parody of, among other things, British culture, ignorant mullahs, and none other than the Ayatollah Khomeini. Not at *all* what was claimed by those who attacked it. I was not very popular for a while on usenet for pointing this out....

I'm saying that I have far more understanding of that culture and what could happen than you do. The risk is real, and people promoting Wikipedia in Muslim countries could needlessly die. Real death, not wiki-death. For an important issue, indeed, we must take the risk. But not for assumptions of bad faith and ignorance.

The credo is not an attack, it is an affirmation. The *full* credo actually begins with a statement of atheism. "There is no god ..." Did you know that the early Christians were considered "atheists" because they rejected the gods? The credo then continues "... but (the) God, he is one, he has no partners." The soundest etymology of the name Allah is that it was an elided al-ilah, the god, and this is very clearly not a tribal god or even anything that can be fixed in conception, it is a single reality, and "reality" or "truth" is explicitly one of the equivalent names. The credo then goes on with "and Muhammad is his servant and prophet," which is likewise clearly not exclusive; but this, then is particular and not universal. So to claim that this is offensive, that it is attacking anyone, is itself highly offensive. It is projecting offensive meaning onto the intention of those who make this affirmation. It would be like telling a Christian who says, "I believe in Jesus," that he has just claimed that everyone is going to Hell who doesn't think like him. He might, perhaps, think that, or not, but that is not what he said.

I did not claim that the matter shouldn't be debated. Rather, it should be dealt with on a policy level, in general. The real issue is a highly contentious one, here, on which no community consensus has been found, the question of what is allowed in userboxes. I did write to Jimbo and his response was that he would delete all religious userboxes. That would not create the hazard I saw. It was a specific deletion threat to this particular userbox that created the risk. There are not many like that. Many such deletion attempts create a big fuss here, with MfDs with many, many contentious comments, but the risk here was bigger than that, and more serious. And you can make fun of it if you like. I hope life treats you kindly. Watch out, there are places you can trip.--

talk

) 02:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agreed with your position on keeping the tag, but I really find your approach troubling. Is your underlying argument so weak that you need to invoke the specter of death to sway people? I think you can do better. Antelan^talk 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but something should be made clear. I've mentioned risks from this process, not to "sway people" but to prevent damage. I first intervened in the MfD on purely local considerations. Then I realized the risk. People have died over stuff like this. I don't like that, in fact I detest it. I'm not threatening anything, I'm warning. It looks like we are going to be left with keep. But stuff like this could seriously harm the project, and, beyond that, real people. I don't want to put words in Jimbo's mouth, but he thinks all religious and political userboxes should be prohibited. That would not be a problem. Targeting the particular userbox, in the manner in which it was targeted, could pose a risk. Listen or not. But don't say that there was no expression of concern. ("how could we possibly have anticipated that ...") --

talk

) 03:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Don';t change people's wordings for them Saying that one believes in allah is different than saying that one believes in One god. One wording is used only by Muslims, the other by christians and Jews also. the etymology isn;t relevant, the generally accepted implications and usage is what counts. An edit like that seems to like changing this user supports the Republican Party to this users supports a republican form of government; certainly the Republican party supports a republican form of government, and so do many others. DGG (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned about that too. I changed it again, being

talk • contribs

)

I am arguing about what his statement may mean to other people. I have known Republicans making claims for what their party name means. Not all of them are justified. That's why I picked that example. I have seen many people of one religion explaining their faith in ways which imply they assume or incorporate other religions, and the other religions deny it. To a Hindu, the world Lord means usually Krishna; to a Christian it means Christ. A Deist believes in one God, and could say as much, but that doesn't mean he believes in the God of the Abrahamic religions. For a prime example of where this can lead, seethe articles about messianic Judaism. Best followed up off wiki, if you like.DGG (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally do this, but I need a sane and rational person at this discussion. I've not only known you to be balanced, but also as someone who's good at sizing up a situation and expressing it articulately, and that's what we need right now.

Before I cut it down significantly, this article was about what I perceive to be two different definitions of anti-Americanism.

• One definition is the sentiment of people who openly declare that they hate America. They walk around with flags that say "Death to America" etc.

• The other thing this article covered was a classification made by philosophers and editorials, that group together similar sentiments, actions, and opinions of people around the world, into something they can compact and call anti-Americanism. In my opinion, this is not factual, and should be kept out of the article.

Others disagree with me on this. They think that when people have a complaint against something America does, it's okay to call that anti-Americanism, as long as we have a source that confirms the people did at least indeed have that complaint. I say, if you want to call me "anti-Susan", you need more proof than the fact that I once berated her for hitting someone.

I'll end there. For more you can take a look at the talk page. I hope I expressed that clearly enough. If you feel like getting involved (I totally understand if you don't), I'd of course appreciate it. And you can of course feel free to disagree with my take on this. I would see your involvement as a positive thing regardless. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:30, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

PS. Here's how it looked before I gutted it: [1], and here's a diff of my gutting: [2] Equazcion •✗/C • 21:39, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

In a quick assessment, I'm inclined to say you pruned too much, though there was a lot there that was making generalizations on the basis of what looked like isolated incidents.

When reading the article, my first was that the absence of

HUAC from the "propaganda term" section was a glaring omission. The difference between "unamerican" and "anti-american" is that context is a semantic one, I feel, and HUAC was the height of patriotic scoundrelism.--Father Goose (talk

) 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! In this edit, you removed three editors' posts, which I reinserted. Best, --

Thanks for that. My browser's done that a couple of times lately, I'm not sure why.--Father Goose (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For talk ) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) --Father Goose (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved it from my userspace because it is probably spent now. Considering you did much of its new format, please take it on. It is never going to go beyond a sketch. If you can make it into a real essay (with a pithy nutshell) then I would be happy to help. The most recent discussion which seems to tide with the spiel/essay we worked on is here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_11 (# User:Keilana/Deleted cabals).

Thanks for you input, it was only a Sunday morning attempt at counter-acting an idea?? (Cabal policy idea which Wikipedia didn't need and doesn't need.

I think what we can all gather from the discussion is that Wikipedia is organic. It doesn't need a lot of policies but general ideas we can all cull from past discussions if editors do need explanations. Essays are a good short hand at pointing to discussions and reasoning. I do suspect that it will stay orphaned (unless you get a pithy nutshell) and work on the ideas of the last

kind regards and again thanks for your input (it wasn't viewed very much - Bpeps Cabals while the Policy Cabal) beat it 1:10. -- BpEps - t@lk 09:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MoP's work was only viewed more because he promoted it more... but everyone agreed with you that a "cabal policy" is an overwrought approach. What you wrote is a fine overview of the nature of cabals on Wikipedia and how they are regarded. Perfectly good essay. At a minimum, we can probably link to Cabals from WP:CABAL. I'll keep an eye out for other related pages.--Father Goose (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

dunno thought the idea was for editors to comment at "Cabal Policy" not just walk away and "tut". Again thanks for your help and continued interest if it is to stay out of a CSD sweep at least add a "nutshell". :-) kind regards -- BpEps - t@lk 10:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on a new article space template at TfD Images needed. GregManninLB (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

with this edit summary :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:-) --Father Goose (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have for now added the link to User:XLinkBot, blacklisting seems appropriate. Have you considered asking for page-protection, that inhibits new accounts and IPs from editing the page, while established editors can still edit. It is for me a bit unclear how much editing by IPs and new accounts is appropriate.

I will keep my eyes open for more of these links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been any real problems on the article, just one user (or group?) that keeps adding this link. The same account(s) do other edits to the article and elsewhere that I don't have a problem with, so I just want to blacklist the link for the time being.--Father Goose (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, though they will then probably start with yet another domain. Please keep me posted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Father Goose, for being the first person at the Adminstrators' noticeboard to suggest my recent block was inappropriate. And you were correct about me being angry at the block. When I said I was leaving, I was absolutely livid for being blocked for supposed vandalism, and at the time I also had the worst flu I can ever remember having. After seeing my first unblock request be denied and my second unblock request go unanswered...it was all just too much. After being gone for a week, I'm less upset and not as sick. I can't seem to keep myself away. Thank you for what you said. I appreciate it. --Pixelface (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I don't get the sense that AGK is a habitual power-abuser like some admins, but this block was applied too readily and for the wrong reasons.

While we're here, I feel like commenting more at length about the issue over which it occurred,

WP:PLOT

. I support moving it into a guideline; it deals with a nuanced issue that I think is more appropriate there than in a deletion policy page. I don't support removing it from WP:NOT until such an alternative home has been set up. You won't actually get it out of WP:NOT until that is in place, because even those who support removing it from NOT mostly support the general idea -- an article comprised of nothing but a plot rehash is just not good. I recommend creating a new guideline proposal, solely about plot, where we can hash out the nuances and our differences in an atmosphere not yet poisoned by animosity (such as WP:WAF). If such a guideline gains support, then we can propose moving PLOT out of NOT to a more rightful place.

I see you responded to Masem's proposal to make WP:PLOT even more restrictive, and you possibly noticed my agreement with it. My view is that we shouldn't give any more plot detail than a movie review or "blurb" would give (IMDB's plot summaries are about right), because while we are allowed to spoil works, I see no reason why we should (especially right at the top of the article!) unless it's necessary to make sense of the commentary we also provide (and then, the "spoilers" should appear with the commentary, not in the synopsis). In the long run, our full plot regurgitations may also get us into legal trouble; there is some precedent for such material being a copyright violation. While I have come to see Mike Godwin's wisdom in not trying to anticipate lawsuits in this regard, I still think we wrong both content publishers and consumers by "reproducing" works, minus all the artistry, every chance we get. We ultimately wrong ourselves as well, and this is what is most important: I've learned the hard way to not read any article about a work of fiction I might want to read/see in the future, because it will be spoiled for me, without fail. I can't risk trying to find out "what it's about", "what critics thought of it", or learn any background material about it or its place in the annals of fiction without being told first that "it's about Darth Vader being Luke's father and Luke gets his hand chopped off and Han Solo gets frozen in carbonite." Now, where the "father" thing is concerned, we could discuss that as a cultural icon, oft repeated and parodied, and even better, we could talk about how Lucas wrote it as "Obi Wan is your father" in the script to throw everyone off the track in case it was leaked. (And also about James Earl Jones' reaction when he first read the correct line: "ooh, he's lying!") But all details that we insist on giving that are not related to our commentary and analysis of the film? Why don't we just let people enjoy learning them the same way we did -- by watching the movie?--Father Goose (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I definitely support moving PLOT to a guideline. I really don't think it has the consensus required to be in a policy. It doesn't appear like it had consensus in the first place. There are multiple threads in the

WP:PLOT

is.

I don't think we wrong authors, publishers, or readers by having articles about fictional topics. As long as there is no plagiarism, I just don't see it. If anything, articles about fictional topics bring them to the attention of a wider audience. I really don't care about spoilers in articles at this point. If I even begin to talk about the spoiler template or the spoiler guideline, I will go into a blind rage. And I'm certainly not worried about legal trouble. Despite what

the spoiler guideline and content disclaimer, not a list of things Wikipedia is not. --Pixelface (talk

) 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dropping by, Father goose, I am alarmed at your "view is that we shouldn't give any more plot detail than a movie review or "blurb" would give (IMDB's plot summaries are about right)" --they are aimed not at information, but at minimal information. Why shouldn't someone be able to find out the plot of a movie from reading it here, and a book also--do you think this also applies to books, by the way? do people go to movies to find out the bare outline of what happens, or to see & hear what happens, in full detail? Did you read or see Moby Dick to find out if a whale was killed at the end? Isn't it relevant for the reader afterwards to be able to fill in the actual plot if they want to, which they probably missed in all the effects and dialog. Isn't it valuable for you to find out here about a much wider range of things than you will ever go to hear, or see? If anyone does not want to know the plot, they dont have to read the article. I have yet to see the publisher who would object to as much detail as the fullest and stupidest plot summary here holds--because, yes, there are over dull over detailed "summaries", generally done by children who think that a minute by minute listing is readable. The guideline is to provide as much as anyone would want who didnt want to see or read the work--to provide here, as elsewhere in Wikipedia, as much as makes any sense in an encyclopedia. I am really surprised that you in particular don't want the same full coverage of plot as for cultural references. Most plot articles in Wikipedia are much too barren. DGG (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like your opinion on a list I am making. I'm pretty sure it's complete. User:JohnnyMrNinja/Water in popular culture ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You overlooked Chinatown. Otherwise it looks pretty good.--Father Goose (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cough.--Father Goose (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As you are a

Thanks, you too.--Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain to me some of the underlying issues of the situation at DRV? I am having trouble understanding both the issue and the underlying issues as well. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak much to what issues other people are raising, but my concern centers around Black Kite's ability to evaluate consensus as relating to the Cheshire Cat article and AfD. He posted a rather combative view toward such content (and articles) on his talk page header back on June 15, which he removed shortly after closing the AfD (a couple of days later, he apparently resigned Wikipedia altogether).

His closing comment in the AfD ("The result was Delete. Random collection of trivia...") closely parallels that talk page comment ("This was supposed to be a Free Encyclopedia - but is rapidly turning it into a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written..."), and I'm given to believe that he closed it according to his personal views instead of measuring whether there was consensus for its deletion. His closing comment doesn't read like an assessment of consensus: it reads like a delete !vote, accompanied by a click of the delete button. It would not be unreasonable to have interpreted the discussion as "no consensus" instead.

Admins are often given pretty wide berth in how they choose to interpret consensus in AfDs, but that's not necessarily a good thing. In cases where the admin imposes his own view instead of trying to weigh all the opinions voiced during the AfD, that makes a mockery out of having a deletion discussion in the first place. I'm not particularly convinced that Black Kite acted objectively in this case. Had another admin closed the AfD in a way that suggested more objectivity, even if the result were "delete", I'd probably have accepted the outcome.--Father Goose (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Erm. I'm not following your logic... IAR means "the goal is the most important thing; ignore rules that get in the way." the goals are listed in the 5 pillars; WP:3IAR summarizes the goals.. and says that all else is crap.

Your logic is...?

I've copied this thread to the talk page of WP:3IAR and replied there.--Father Goose (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Knock knock. It's been a while since I replied at

Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR)

05:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the defense of the Gen Z article and the rewrite. It was an interesting deletion vote, as people cited Wikipedia policy and I couldn't argue against them... thankfully a consensus came in with "general notability trumps all."71.206.246.149 (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Those policy citations were off the mark, however. There were so many solid references available on the subject, I knew the arguments would hold no water in the face of a well-written and well-sourced article on the subject. I wanted to see if even just the anticipation of a better-written article would carry the day -- and it did.--Father Goose (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

!?!?!?! This is the most recent one, right? I need a good Wikilawyer. JohnnyMrNinja 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I did what I could to accord you proper credit: [3].--Father Goose (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your edit in my watchlist, then checked what links there, went to that essay, and I SWEAR my heart stopped for three minutes. When I posted that it was never with the intention that a popular webcomic would come up with a similar-though-quite-possibly-unrelated idea. While parody is acceptable under fair use, my article is itself a parody, which I believe is self-negating. As a matter of public record, I request that the webcomic be amended to not having been made. Thanks for the props, though. JohnnyMrNinja 09:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I was attracted to your reputation for salvaging and building potentially hopeless Wiki pages. I admit to hopelessness. After many years and several editing wars, I have once more restored this much edited and disputed page here in this sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox#Suzanne_Olsson

and here on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_olsson#Category_American_Authors

The page itself is once again nominated for deletion by the very same people who nominated it for deletion the first time 'round. Their justification ranges from labelling it as fringe, to conflicts of interest, to no notability or interest to Wki readers(non-encyclopedic). And regardless the sources listed, they were always deleted as insufficient or unacceptable. The page was edited mercilessly, citations were constantly removed, sources were constantly being ridiculed as either incomplete or fringe or in other ways unacceptable. It was even requested by one editor to prove the date of birth! OK, I admit I did lose my cool at that point. Same editor refused to indicate how one proves their birth date or why this would be required. I acted in good faith with these people, fully expecting to get helpful guidance and I did whatever was required to please them,just as the original creators of the page had done, but very quickly I was left with the impression they had no intention of ever approving the page, regardless who submitted it or how well sourced. It felt more like a personality war than an editing war. It appears to have been one huge effort in futility.. I have reinstated the page and request that you take a preview and perhaps advise me how the page can be locked, at least until some of these issues are resolved by other less impartial editors..By the way, I have to relocate some of the online links then they too will be inserted on the page.

Thank you for your kind help.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll help. First of all, you don't need page protection, at least not unless vandalism becomes a problem. That copy of the article is now in your user space, and you have quasi-administrative status over it, at least that's my opinion. As long as the page is being used to develop a possible article for return to mainspace, it should be able to remain there. Then you and other editors can edit it to answer objections that were raised in the AfD. Your conflict of interest won't apply there, but, of course, you will be well advised to take seriously, advice and edits made by others, even by -- or especially by -- "opponents." In your own user space, you will not be limited as to your capacity to revert changes. But be sure to be civil. If you are tempted not to be, bandage your hands, "if you can't say anything good, don't say anything at all," just revert without comment, and if someone edit wars with you, and I or others don't notice, go to

talk

) 16:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone just deleted the entire page without explanation. Does this constitute vandalsim (again) ? This is what I am up against. I will reinstate the page....please can we lock it somehow?I feel strongly that these are personal attcks.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was quite confused at first by the

talk

) 17:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they were not personal attacks. You don't understand what is going on. Stop. Be patient. You recreated a deleted article in mainspace with a slightly changed name. That's a no-no, and the page seems to have been deleted by an administrator. It isn't personal, period. (If there is some personal motive, it's irrelevant, in fact, I'd have deleted it myself if I were an administrator.) So stop acting on your own behalf, you are making mistakes that could be taken as disruptive. You can now help to develop the article at

talk

) 17:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I am trying to understand everything you said. I do not understand what you meant by a deliberate name change..Did you mean from olsson to Olsson? That was an attempt to make a spelling correction, not a name change. Other than that, there should be no name problems. I will always use this name. Someone else had created the original page. She did a poor job of sourcing. When the page was intially hacked, all sources good, bad and otherwise had been removed. That's when it all came to my attention. I have been on the defensive and not believing everyone since then. I will take your advise and just sit tight and wait. Meanwhile I will try to locate those newspaper articles online...I will send you the urls when I find them or I will request a friend in India to scan and send me the originals..my email addie is olsson.books at yahoo.com..Whew. (that is a sigh of relief) Thank you. I will wait to hear from you and try to fullfill every request possible...Sue SuzanneOlsson (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an effort in futility. Unless you can get several fairly major media outlets to report exclusively about you, your career, and/or your works (not just about the subject areas you work on), an article about you will never be accepted on Wikipedia. (Should that happen, you will no longer need to write it: someone will write it for you, because we Wikipedians love to write about people in the news.) At this time, it won't matter who gets involved in this case -- myself or any other advocate of besieged articles. No amount of strife on Wikipedia by you or anyone else will result in a different outcome here. Keep developing your career and ideas, but do yourself the best possible favor and bypass Wikipedia. This fight will not produce the result you want and will just cause you misery and lost time. My regards to you and your continuing work.--Father Goose (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Father Goose, I wouldn't be so sure. I suspect that there is reliable notice of this work, enough to bring it within range of being accepted, possibly more than enough. However, even if you are correct, there is no harm in trying, with the article in user space, and there are other wikis where the article could then go if conclusively rejected here. Further, I'm suggesting that she not fight. "Resist not evil," Jesus reportedly said. Just testify to what you know, and leave the rest to God, or Truth, or whatever you want to call it; here we call it "consensus." As to the name change, the article was recreated in mainspace with lower-case in the last name, which could be seen -- and probably was seen -- as an attempt to bypass deletion. It was also recreated in the Sandbox, having been moved there by an admin, first. That is under MfD at the moment, which I think will decide on Keep, particularly since the COI argument has been finessed now. If not, I'd go to

talk

) 18:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If by "reliable notice of this work" you mean the Kashmiri tomb, I'd agree, but I cannot find any sources of the kind Wikipedia requires to be able to defend having an article on Ms. Olsson herself. Maybe I just haven't found such sources, but the easier they are to find, the easier it is to defend an article. If you can't produce any reliable sources independent from the subject that directly discuss the subject (i.e., Ms. Olsson), you can't keep an article alive on Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right. So? "The work" refers to Ms. Olsson's work on the issue. It could also include her books. Finding the sources may not be easy, but once they are found, the article becomes much easier to defend. They do not have to be available on the internet, that, again, makes it easier but is not controlling. There is a huge amount of Reliable Source that is not googleable and not internet accessible, or not easily accessible (i.e., it might be there and can be viewed once the URL is known.) First basic problem: find proof of notability for Ms. Olsson or for the books. I think the problem can be solved. If not, well, no big deal, I'm not betting the farm on it. She will do most of the work, I think, she can get the scans I requested, etc. First things first. And, Father Goose, if you are going to be more effective dealing with deletionists, you'll have to drop the negative attitude that assumes failure even before you start. I rescued

talk

) 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, before I posted, I checked Google News (including archives), Google Scholar, and Google Books. Google News contains mentions from local newspapers in the 1970s about a beauty pageant winner named Suzanne Olsson; Google Books returned her self-published book and a one-line mention in someone else's book. That's not enough for a biographical article on Wikipedia. I have no means to find or even read sources in Kashmiri. I would think Ms. Olsson herself would know who's been writing about her and would be able to provide better sources, if they existed. I would defend an article based on solid sources, but I've seen little to suggest that they will be found. There is a point at which you have to shrug, smile, and walk away.--Father Goose (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on! I just lost ten minutes of work typing a reply that was booted by your reply....Wait a few moments so I can retype it..Thank you.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • The issue about Jesus in India and the tomb in India affects many millions of lives. An entire religion, the Ahmaddiyas, are founded by someone who widely published claims that this was indeed the tomb of Jesus. He dispatched investigators to kashmir who spent many months there looking at all evidence. Then he wrote a book that at first had the support of the entire Muslim world. The idea was to prove to Chrisitians that jesus was there. The belief was that Christians would abandon their religion in the millions and flock to Islam. What caused this to backfire is that the same founder of the religion went on to declare himslef the resurrected Jesus and Krishna, and the next prophet after Mohammed. Since Musims believe that only Mohammed can be the last prophet, this declaration led to the expulsion of all Ahmaddiys from Islam. Among themselves, this is a very hotly debated topic. People are getting killed over this very belief system every day. Ahmadiia are strongly prejudiced against. Therefor I tried to distance myself from all claims about Ahmaddis and Islam. I tried to find independent evidence that existed outside their claims.And I feel I did accomplish this. The article in the Kashmir newspaper discussed the fears that my research would lead to renewed sectarian violence. The article in the Times of India discussed about the tourist value of my research for Kashmir. Give me a few days to at least get the issue dates of those articles. I wrote articles for many major publications from places I was living around the world. But this was over a forty year (or more) time period and to my knowledge none of these are online. I was the Human Interest editor with one newspaper and held a similar position with the Government newspaper yet none of these appear online. I dont have a clue how to prove this except through my employment records so I dropped all mention of half my life's work because I cannot seem to properly source it. The books were self-published but have since been picked up by a publisher in India...By the way, not that it's necessary for me to mention this at all, but I consider myself a Christian.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I wish to add one more comment here about my work. I went into this to investigate the claims that the tomb was the tomb of Jesus. I came away with a book that is highly critical of Islam and the cultural damage being done in the name of this religion...such as the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha. Because my condemnation of cultural terrorism was so strongly expressed, I have incurred the wrath of a few Muslims. This is indeed a very sensitive area.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But that probably has little or nothing to do with what is going on here, though it might have influenced one or two editors. By the way, I am Muslim, and am fairly well known as such on the internet, though I've lately been working on more general political issues, off of Wikipedia, and haven't done much work on Muslim issues here. I'm taking this purely as a project to rescue an article by finding usable sources for it. Of course, maybe this is related to what I see "real islam" as meaning. It's not a sect. --

talk

) 23:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • And one last question for tonite, if you moved the article from the previous sandbox, please provide the url where it can be viewed and worked on? Thank you.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

talk

) 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Several things, and I hope that Father Goose doesn't mind this discussion here. First of all, reliable source does not have to be on-line. Look through articles and you will see traditional citations to publications that are not available on-line. Your employment records won't be the issue, those are "primary sources." However, bylines in reliable sources can be used. So if you can find copies of articles in edited publications, those may be usable. I'm very familiar with the Ahmadiyya issue, but it's not relevant here, that establishes the importance of the topic you've worked on, but not of you. For publications not in English, we'll need to find neutral translations; that can be arranged if I have scans of the originals, I believe. Father Goose, do you see the problem here? If what she is saying is true, and I can't testify to that, yet, but it almost certainly is, there is likely plenty of source, but you aren't going to find it with Google. It will take some work, perhaps, with libraries, you know, those quaint places where they have piles of paper with marks on it. Self-published works can't establish notability simply by existing, but reviews in independent publications essentially reverse that, and then the self-published works become usable sources on themselves and their author, for certain purposes. Sometimes how Wikipedia treats people like Olsson is atrocious, but by no means is there nothing we can do about it. I'm suspecting that she is, in fact, notable, and that once we get the ducks in a row, it won't be at all difficult to move the article back. But, of course, I can't be sure, it depends on exactly what is in those sources and details I can't anticipate.

Suzanne, you have all the time you need. There is no rush; but, of course, until we have the sources, the article will sit in my user space. And then it will take some time to edit it into shape for return, and probably, tactically, we should stub it, i.e., reduce it to a minimum that shows notability, with good sourcing for that, the issue at AfD. Then sources that are usable but that don't show notability may be usable to flesh out the article, such as your own publications, reviews in "fringe publications" and the like. I'd rather work on that part of it after the article is successfully returned to mainspace, where the fate of the article isn't hanging on somebody's argument about a marginal source, which can confuse those who vote in AfDs. --

talk

) 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can compile a set of independent sources that directly discuss Ms. Olsson in any kind of depth, I'll help defend the article. Personally, I'd do what I could to keep a biography of me out of Wikipedia. Those "wrathful Muslims" can edit Wikipedia too...--Father Goose (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Father Goose. I don't think she is afraid of them. As to myself, well, my wife used to insist that I use a post office box. Had one at San Quentin, California for a while. Nice little post office just outside the gates of the state prison, where I visited as a volunteer Muslim chaplain maybe three or four times a week. In any case, it's about time that ordinary Muslims and others who may be "believers" at heart (it's about God, not about sects and dogma) stand up to the fanatics, who are well described in the Qur'an as people who will "ruin the earth" if they are allowed to do so. There was wide outcry against the destruction of the Bamyan Buddha, from actual Muslim scholars, which, after all, had survived the entire span of Muslim history without anything like the Taliban campaign. But "Taliban" means "students," and, indeed, they didn't -- and don't -- know much about Islam, for the most part. They are the modern counterparts of the

talk

) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Somehow I find it comforting to know a Muslim is involved with this artcle. Christians have the most resistance to this idea, and the most condemnation. Muslims are far more familiar with the topic. In fact most everyone who buys the book (and it has had slow steady sales around the world for several years now) are in fact Muslims. I have always told Ahmaddis that I'm sending them the bill for doing all the hard work to prove their foundations. I have never feared Ahmaddis...and I understand the reference to Shia beliefs. I think about the death of Ali often, it was horrific and cruel, not unlike the crucifixion of Jesus. I have been in all mosques, Shia, Sunni, Ahmaddi, and of course I relate to Sufi rather well, having had incredible experiences with same. The Al Faizl mosque in Islamabad is quite beautiful. I am comfortable having you here on the same page so to speak. You can be the balance where Christian editors fail to see beyond their assumed beliefs. I'll start working on those edition dates from India. I may have to send a few emails to Srinagar and Delhi then wait for a reply before I can post them here..All the best SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Hello F.G. and Abd...The only information returned to me from India is that the newspaper articles appeared in April and June of 2002, but they are not available online..several more articles appeared in Urdu and Hindi magazines which also do not appear online. Two days ago someone found this url and sent it to me:

[4]

It appears to be a copy of one of the revisions we had going on here. The category is left undefined. I have recieved several positive emails about the information contained in the article.I forwarded it on to colleagues around the world who responded favorably.Of course they are not Wiki editors which is another whole animal. Would there be a problem if we accept this article as the finished product? I don't see anything contentious in this, do you? Thank You SuzanneOlsson (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

At a minimum, you'll need to be able to provide so-called "reliable sources" (major newspapers, etc.) that other editors can check themselves. Realistically, you will probably have to obtain copies of the sources yourself, scan the portions that talk directly about you, by name, and post them online so other people can check them. Otherwise your biography will remain indefinitely deleted. It isn't a question of whether the article is "contentious", it's a question of a)

absence of self-promotion

. If you can't overcome those two problems, you will not end up having an article in Wikipedia.

An alternative you might consider is posting a slightly rewritten version of the biography on your user page. Users are generally allowed to describe themselves, their interests, and their deeds on their own user pages. You also wouldn't be required to provide sources. I would be willing to help you rewrite it so that it would come across as self-descriptive (which is allowed) and not self-promotional (which is not allowed).--Father Goose (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your request for "reliable sources" that can be checked by others. It appears that the Paul Davids film and the Fortean Times article are in that category. I have spent quite a long time looking over the Wikipedia section on American authors, well over two thousand of them. Aside from the obviously classical and famous, most authors on Wiki fall into my category and have very similar pages.I don't see where 'quantity' is a factor, where I would need ten sources instead of two sources. I don't feel this is self-promotion because the subject matter has been of great interest around the world as becomes evident from the hundreds of websites and blogs and forums delving into this area of interest. I have advised several independent film producers. There is scant little available in this genre and yet it remains popular enough that several independent films are made yearly. I am trying hard to remove myself from any suggestion that this is self serving...I know much of the information is radical and new and based on years of serious research that people want and need access to. I hope the books are regarded as research and comparative religious history. They certainly are not fiction or fringe! Thank you for willingness to help me work through these little glitches. All the best, SuzanneOlsson (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those two are your most solid sources at this point. But from a Wikipedia viewpoint, they're not yet enough to justify having an article on you specifically. The subject you research has generated sufficient attention to qualify for a handful of Wikipedia articles, but you need to demonstrate a substantial amount of attention paid to you personally to qualify for a biographical article. Limited mentions in one article and one documentary film are not sufficient. It is a quantity issue, essentially. The more you can demonstrate that people are paying attention to you (not just the Kashmir tomb -- you), the more people will embrace having a Wikipedia article on you.--Father Goose (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This at least should assure you that this has not been blatant self-serving promotion as I have failed to save every reference and source through the years...I have worked with several of the world's most famous Asian archaeologists and DNA programs, a dozen independent film producers and other authors who regularly depend on me to help them. Ahmaddis around the world contact me weekly for more information. This is vitally important research for them. There are forums and websites all over the world that discuss the premises of my book, but these don't qualify as the mainstream media you seek? I suppose I could place urls here to similar Wiki authors just for reasonable comparisons. Here's one listed as an 'author' who wrote one book and never got mentioned anywhere else in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Angermeyer

Now PLEEEZE don't rush to her page just to shoot it down...I only mean to point out that the category 'American Writers' is quite broad and tolreant of we of lesser fame. I am at a loss here how else to make this point to you..  :-( SuzanneOlsson (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Her book, however, was reviewed by the LA Times and Washington Post: [5], and her work has been drawn upon by a number of other mainstream authors: [6]. Even that might not be enough to keep her article from getting deleted, however; "

notability

" is a harsh mistress on Wikipedia. An article about her book would be more likely to be retained, though -- her book is more notable than she personally is.

The importance of you and your work to many people cannot be measured by Wikipedia except to the extent that you are mentioned, by name, in mainstream media sources. That is Wikipedia's proxy for "importance". Forums, blogs, and the like indeed don't count as reliable sources (or indicators of importance); anyone can write them. None of this means that you are unimportant, just that the world hasn't yet published a lot about you. Change that and Wikipedia will trip over itself to write an article about you.--Father Goose (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What Father Goose has told you is generally correct. It's pretty easy to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It's not precedent-driven, that is, it isn't considered relevant in a deletion discussion to claim that "there are other articles like this." Wikipedia has 2.5 million articles and many of them don't meet editorial standards, there is continual effort to "clean it up." Notability standards are particularly controversial, and deletion decisions are made one at a time (if controversial, there is speedy deletion process for uncontroversial deletions). And each decision is separate, so there is no guarantee at all of consistency. However, a truly inconsistent result may get reversed later. I'm not a deletionist and I don't try to delete stuff that isn't notable, unless it's ridiculously non-notable. But I also respect the community consensus, and the community currently has certain standards, which I consider it my duty to try to help you satisfy, if it is possible. I've suggested that you look for actual print copies of mentions of you and your work. It's nice if stuff is on-line, but, as we have mentioned before, there are ways to deal with print copies. What we are looking for is independent, reliable source that shows notability for you (as FG notes, not merely a tomb with a mention of your book.) You have description in the draft article of your life. What's the source for that?

FG's suggestion about a biography on your user page is a good one. You can write whatever you like about yourself there, within reason. It's not supposed to be a promotional page, don't try to sell your books there! But you can link to your own external web site there, for example, and you can simply tell your story, as he says, you don't need sources.

For article purposes, though, you aren't considered reliable source for your own life, unless an independent publisher publishes, say, an autobiography, and even then, it might be considered a little shaky if there isn't any independent review. I've done some amazing things in my life, and am continuing that, but you don't see a Wikipedia article on me, because very little of it has been noticed n print. Martin Gardner, one of my favorite writers, mentioned me, in Skeptical Inquirer. Seems to me I remember some mention of me in a major English newspaper. Hmmm... maybe I could have an article! (probably not, not from that alone. The articles weren't about me, what I'd said or done was merely considered relevant to the subject of the article; in the Martin Gardner example, I might be one of the world's foremost experts on a very narrow subject, which he was writing about.) So ... look for articles about you, your travels, your work. Anything you can find would help. Fortean Times is probably the best source you have so far, but it's not got a lot of respect among Wikipedia editors. Still, with that and one or two other sources, we might pull it off. Newspapers are often considered good source, unless very special-purpose (such as, say, the Aquarian Almanac, a publication I helped with years ago. Narrow audience, editorial standards not high.) If you find something, say, in Kashmiri, it can be arranged, I believe, to get an independent translation to confirm any that you have. ... --

talk

) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Father Goose and Abd, thank you for taking the time to explain. At this time I will simply follow your suggestion to have a biography on my user page instead. Just this morning I was contacted by yet another editor doing an article on me and this topic...and it never occured to me to ask him where or when it would appear! I recall he represents an Urdu newspaper in the UK.. the biography can be moved at such time enough outside sources are added....I will ask the writer of the artcile to give me additional info that I can include for Wiki..

Do I have a user page? Where is it? (I'm blond) Thank you....Sue Olsson PS..Abd is notable? Maybe I can write a Wiki artcile about you one day!  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.23.179 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You will need to find reliable source for it, of course, and anything written by someone who is blond is automatically disqualified, see

WP:BLOND

. :-).

As to your user page, there are, in the Wikipedia interface, links (top of the screen for some skins, on the left for others) to your User page and to your Talk page. --

talk

) 22:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your user page is at User:SuzanneOlsson. Don't just copy the draft article to it, however; you'll get right back into the problems that's going on at the current MfD (deletion discussion). Write it as a personal introduction to yourself, not as an article -- though you can include all of the same details that are in the current article, and more if you like.--Father Goose (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (3 nomination) win. —Giggy 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow there has been a lot of discussion going on. I've been on vacation and was surprised to see such a drastic change. I reverted thinking it was just boldness. Are you happy with the current version? I thought we had developed a consensus a few months back on what was there. But if you are happy I feel better if not convinced. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know how it is,

CCC. This latest set of changes was set into motion by Centrx with this edit, which you were around for. The reason for his change was apparently an objection that the previous wording contrasted essays ("not obligatory") with policies and guidelines, seeming to imply that policies and guidelines are obligatory. Centrx had a point about that being wrong, though in the process we lost the all-important emphasis on essays being non-obligatory. Through a bit of back-and-forth on the talk page and the template itself, we stabilized on the current wording, which still gets the job done, I think... and may actually be better than the old wording.--Father Goose (talk

) 04:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at it later, but I'd recommend

DTV transition in the United States since Mexico and Canada will be doing their rollout at a different time and in a different way from the US.--Father Goose (talk

) 19:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Canada and Mexico are using the same ATSC DTV system as the US and deployment to those countries (scheduled for completion in 2011 and 2021 respectively) is being driven largely by adjacent US markets being already near completion of their full-power TV conversion. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They'll be using ATSC, but not the coupon program, and most of the details in the US section are US-specific. Should the information about the US transition prove to be applicable to the Canadian and Mexican plans when they start being implemented, we can change the article title to "North America" at that time.--Father Goose (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

True, it's all but impossible to find the converters, not just the coupons, in most of Canada at the moment. Most C--- stations are using ATSC just to transmit an HD version of existing main channel or are not yet even on-air, so there's utterly nothing on Canadian terrestrial DTV that isn't on analogue. México only has about 30 DTV stations on-air (out of the several hundred in analogue), no idea what the situation is for converters there.

DTV transition in the United States would do for now. --66.102.80.212 (talk

) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.