User talk:Oakshade

Notability of Rosie Palmer

Please elaborate on notability outside of context of the murder--Lucy-marie 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't need to. Even within "the context of the murder", this person is notable. Just because someone it notable due to one thing, doesn't make the person not-notable. --Oakshade 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Notability is "Generally Permanent" not absolutely permanent as you asserted.--Lucy-marie 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally permanent. Rosie Palmer is generally permanant. --Oakshade 21:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Define how this is so on her own with no connection to Armstrong.--Lucy-marie 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

She's "notable" due to the murder. No claim otherwise. That is not a reason to delete an article about her. --Oakshade 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not deletion it is merging the information on the murder stays and so does the information on Palmer it is just grouped together in one place to provide an overview on the whole area from the victim the circumstances the murderer and the murder.--Lucy-marie 21:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PNC

Hi. Looking at your user page, it looks like we have much in common, including living in California. It looks like we might be on different tacks toward the same course regarding the notability issue. I think it might be nice to discuss our objectives to see whether we have some common ground.

My goal is to simplify the notability infrastructure by the following: (1) eliminate superfluous sub-guidelines, (2) provide as much continuity among the remaining sub-guidelines and WP:N, and (3) develop a more welcoming structure for bona fide information while allowing us to combat the flood of spam and nonsense. Clear this is no easy task and there are more than one way to accomplish this or similar goal.

I see the broad inclusion of the pnc template as a good step toward continuity. If you look at the history at the template and at WP:N, you will see that I am not a supporter of the current form which I believe to be overly restrictive and subjective, but I do believe that if the template can be put into use and then prominently discussed in the light of day, more palatable language can be developed.

Your thoughts?

--Kevin Murray 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• While I agree the entire "inclusion criteria" is archaic, self-contradictory and frequently ambiguous enough for interpretations to suit an editors' purposes, having this one canned rigidly worded sentence in every genre guideline completely negates the purpose of having those guidelines. For example, for professors and academics it dawned on many editors that the "subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works" clause doesn't always apply to "notable" academics; Influential academics like Peter A. Singer and David M. Smolin have no non-trivial published works written about them (at least as far as WP editors know). This is why the guideline was created and carefully worded, albeit with disagreements, as these topics are worthy of inclusion. The common "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" line just doesn't apply to many "notable" topics and corrupts the supject-specific criterias. --Oakshade 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Singer is a good argument for a single source establishing notability. Smolin seems to be a squeaker even in my liberal mind. Several of the sub-guidelines reference the PNC (or close to it) and then offer either exceptions or cases where there is an assumption that further sources exist but have not yet been found. Centrx has been a proponent of the latter concept in many discussions at WP:N talk.--Kevin Murray 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we make the template non-rigid enough to reduce your concern? --Kevin Murray 20:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider this lead paragraph to the special cases section at BIO, as fine tuned today:

Special cases

The following criteria make it likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of these criteria probably merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. Editors evaluating an article should assume that adequate research will support notability. "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject should not be included; meeting one or more does not mean that a subject should be included."

It's not the wording of the tag, it's there should not be broad-brush tag like this. These guidelines are special cases in themselves and marginalizing them under a tag weakens the inclusion guidelines as a whole. --Oakshade 01:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to get your comments at WP:N talk. --Kevin Murray 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment on recent AfD discussion

Hi there Oakshade, Just wanted to say that I will be looking more closely at any articles I send to AfD. I realize that my opinion of notability influences my motivation to look for sources for an article that has none and will keep that in mind.

I still think that we have to remember the readers, who comprise the vast majority of WP users. Any truly notable and worthy article that gets Afd'd will get sourced quickly or will be recreated and sourced by someone interested.

Thanks for putting up the poll, I think it brought out some good points. --killing sparrows 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lucinda Roy

Greetings. Lucinda Roy seems to have become one of the targets of self-appointed wiki-vigilantes (maybe we have a new word here: Wikilantes) who are intent upon deleting any article about any person associated with the Virginia Tech massacre regardless of their notability otherwise. This is the second time I've deleted a dated prod for her; this time I also added a further justification for objecting to the prod in her talk page. I do believe she is notable, want to extend my appreciation for the work you've done on the article to prove her notability (finding reviews of her books, for example). I'm about to go on vacation for a couple of weeks, & won't be around as much (though I will have my laptop with me); I'm hoping you have her on your watchlist in case of further overzealous Wikilantes. --Yksin 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This person should've had an article long ago and what I'm sure are sockpuppets (Anon new users who know how to establish prods? Hah!) are just looking for excuses to delete articles are trying to unjustly erase this one. It's on my watchlist. --Oakshade 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking sockpuppet too. There are a couple of usernames that have been hot to delete anything they deem to be a "memorial in violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL" starting with victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, moving on to the victims of the Columbine High shootings & of Charles Whitman (the 1960s UTexas clocktower sniper), etc. Independent articles about any victim too, regardless of their notability otherwise. Lucinda Roy wasn't a victim, of course, but this seems to be an outgrowth of that. I wouldn't be surprised to see them make a try on Nikki Giovanni too, no matter her article's been there for years. -- anyway, I'll keep an eye for this article when I check in during my trip. I will try to actually add to the article too. --Yksin 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ORG

I have no problem removing the template as my objective of generating discussion is achieved, but let's be fair and go back to where this all began. --Kevin Murray 02:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to delete what was there before the template and thank you for restoring that content. --Oakshade 02:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Your welcome. Here's too future consensus! --Kevin Murray 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy.

I have been here a very long time and have never violated WP:POINT. My nomination is in good faith. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my rationale, but please do not accuse me of malfeasance in my actions. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

After the initial slew of these editors recently involved in trying (again) to get this deleted vote, I predict it will be another solid keep and it will end up being another time-waster. The project is doomed if I'm wrong. --Oakshade 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But what does that have to do with accusing me of a serious offense without evidence and in contrary to what was written? Like I said, even if you disagree with my rationale, its just not appropriate to accuse me of disrupting Wikipedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

After 3 solid keep AfDs, all within the last 2 months, on a subject that clearly passes our guidelines should not waste editors time with yet another. --Oakshade 08:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read my nomination closely enough? AfDs 2 and 3 were speedy closed because they were too soon after the initial AfD. In fact, there has been only one full AfD. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I read it and the logic is flawed. Too soon and it clearly passes our guidelines. As I said before, the AfD outcome will likely demonstrate this. --Oakshade 08:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gold Train

You did a good job on the article. If I did it, it would not have been good as yours. I did not have much to go on. Do not worry if you think that you stole my "limelight", this article was just something that I had in mind and you did me and Wikipedia a favor. Again good job on the article and if you see something that I have planned to do and you have info or want to do it, then feel free to do so. Rutke421 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hungarian Gold Train, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian Gold Train

Hi Oakshade: This is a kind of article that attracts the interest of many readers. Keep up the good work! Camptown 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

You're not an admin, so you really shouldn't be removing speedy tags, but i'm happy to oblige you with afd nominations. --GreenJoe 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, all editors are allowed to remove speedy tags when they think the speedy deletions were inappropriate as they were in all of your speedy tagging cases.--Oakshade 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. GreenJoe 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Key words "could be bad faith nom." Besides, attempting to get me to not remove inappropriate speedy tags based on non-existant rules is a bad faith effort in itself. --Oakshade 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

When you accuse me of bad faith in multiple afd's, then you're not assuming good faith. If you want me to reply to your message, please leave a message on my talk page. --GreenJoe 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't play that chasing game. Attempting to delete a majority of articles of candidates from a single party cannot be ignored and should be presented to other edtitors. The editors can make up their own mind. --Oakshade 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:German WWII Frieght Train.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New York International Independent Film and Video Festival

Hi Oak, the mention is on the 2nd page of the article, it doesn't affect the ref? Not complaining, I just do not know what is the policy in this case. Thanks!Stellatomailing 15:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. Generally, the link needs to be to the article title which is usually on the fist page, but I don't think it's a problem to link to the actual page later in the article. I'm not sure on exact policy (or even if there is a policy) on this, but I won't counter if it's linked to another page. --Oakshade 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that anybody that wants to question the information can read the entire article. Let's see - there is somebody trying to change the article to reflect the organizer's views, as you see.Stellatomailing 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I would like to source it even more, but those three articles are the best of the bunch.Stellatomailing 22:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm preparing an Administrator's Noticeboard post about this issue. The person(s), who now identifies themself as a "Publicity Event Producer Film Consultant", is being rather relentless. --Oakshade 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like she is related to the festival: Briege McGarrity.

No cache for that. I wonder if we can still use it?Stellatomailing 23:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Btw, this is a good question. Where could I propose that we adopt a similar policy for our own movies notability?Stellatomailing 23:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Without a URL, editors can make a good case to delete the material (it's not like the source is a book). I just don't know. As far as notability guidelines for movies, the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (films) is a good place to state your opinion. Notability of films can be quite subjective and I imagine consensus on that will be pretty hard. --Oakshade 23:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what I get. [1]Stellatomailing 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim Angels/Anaheim Ducks

I left a comment at Talk:Los Angeles, California stating my opinion. Please check back there and reply to my comment. Thank you. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of AfD...

You obviously want to keep Vanessa Kraven, then may I suggest improving the article rather than arguing on the AfD page. I have nothing against the article other than it fell under a list of 40 PRODs that were placed there by WP:PW in an attempt to clean up the project. You removed the PROD, I posted the AfD, but I also posted 16 other AfDs. As it stand the article is poorly sourced and once other members of WP:PW begin to vote then in its current state it will end up being deleted, the consensus in the project is for deletion, just read the project talk page, and look at this AfD [2] to see how the project works. In fact other users have accused the project of "group think", which is not true, but the members to reach a consensus quickly. You have voted and I have voted so this is now up to you to make the page better or see it deleted, and it is not me saying I will delete it but me telling you the current consensus will be to delete. Darrenhusted 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those sources do not support the information on that page, find better sources, then add the information, the closing admin will check the external links, and unless they can read both French and Japanese they will not see supporting refs from those seven sources, heck I even found the Bio links on the two English pages with any information on, so there is no show of bad faith. I suggest you look for the sources, one more revert and the page will lock. Darrenhusted 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All the material you attempted to delete is verifiable. Deleting all verifiable material DURING and AfD is very bad faith, not to mention immature. --Oakshade 02:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is it verifiable? Here [3] or here [4], those two sources don't even agree on her weight. I can't read Japanese or French so who knows what those other sites say? And the other refernce take you to a shop! Darrenhusted 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable means there is information avaible, not that it's not in the article. You're confusing "verifiable" with "verified."--Oakshade 02:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Find better sources, or translate the Japanese and French. Darrenhusted 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)