User talk:DHowell/Archive 4

Five Pillars Trivia discussion

Hello, Dan. Obviously I'm late in checking my wiki-mail, but I did want to drop you a note regarding the whole "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" debate (which an edit of mine helped to spark! Wow!). It is sad that this simple phrase (and simpler is always more powerful) caused trouble. Even Jimbo endorsed it, but it has been misinterpreted to mean that Wikipedia should contain no "trivia" whatsoever. The rational debate was nice to see, and Wikipedia is better for it. I've taken a position here which I think you'll find reasonable. I'm just glad nobody wants to resurrect the awful "writers' rules of engagement" phrase. __ø(._. ) Patrick("\(.:...:.)/")Fisher 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dan Barreiro

An editor has nominated Dan Barreiro, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Barreiro and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tom Poleman

Nothing is stopping you from re-adding this article but you must explain how he is notable and provide citations from reliable sources to back it up. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've replied to you on my talkpage regarding Tom Poleman, if you don't have me watchlisted. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Baka Boyz

HM, you have a good point. Granted, I'll probably relist it on AfD again procedurally, though it does seem notable now. Wizardman 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Replied here. DHowell (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion

I recently closed the AfD discussion on this AfD debate. If there are any other changes that need to be made, let me know. Cheers. TN‑X-Man 17:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

Please cleanup both User:DHowell/Sandbox and User:DHowell/List of radio stations in California by market area to prevent them from being included in Category:Radio stations in California. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done. DHowell (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Real World/Road Rules

I understand your reasoning for wanting to keep the article, but at the same time I also understand that the deletion the original article in question was not in good faith.

You were wrong in your summary. The community did not decide to delete the article (that was not even mine to begin with.)

Here is how it went down:

1. Article was put up for deletion.

2. Five days later I happen upon article. See that it is without sources and poorly written. I spend an hour updating it, adding sources etc.

3. Four people comment on the updated article. One thinks it still should be deleted (same person who spammed the RW/RR Challenge AfD thread) - Three think it should be kept.

4. Article is deleted before further discussion can be had by random admin in the middle of the night.

5. I create an article that is similar, but add more sources and more content. A better article and one with sources that hold water.

6. Article is deleted 5 minutes later. Not even a courtesy message left on my userspace saying 2 hours of my work was just wiped out.

7. I ask for the article to be reviewed. Everyone reviews it on being a recreation and misses the point that the article that was deleted was never debated (with what little debate going in favor of keeping.) The new sources are not debated AT ALL. Nothing is debated except the fact that it was a recreation.

8. I withdrew the review request as I realized I would not be heard and it was a worthless exercise.

As for putting the article in my own userspace. No....I quit. I have invested enough time for naught. Six months from now someone will rewrite that article and it will be exactly the same as I had it 2 weeks ago except completely unsourced, so why fight it. A handful of "wikisnobs" have decided that my article doesn't fly (even though the same sources are all over 90% of Real World/Road Rules Articles) and even though the facts are correct, there is nothing that can be done when elite users dictate the lay of the land. Zredsox (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the process sucks big time. But I was trying to give you helpful advice, to explain how your invested time would not be for naught, by actually working with other editors instead of against them. It is unfortunate that it seems you would rather complain about the "wikisnobs", retaliate, and throw virtual temper tantrums, than actually work towards making Wikipedia a better place. Consider that even if you are 100% correct, isn't it possible that the tone of your reactions only helps those "wikisnobs" feel justified in their actions? Six months from now, the show will have presumably aired and there will be plenty of reliable sources. But neither deletionist wikisnobs, nor those retaliating against them with their own brand of snobbery, will make the article about it any better. You could come back in six months, ignore the wikisnobs, and make the inevitable "completely unsourced article" better. Or not. Wikipedia will go on regardless. Wikipedia would be better, though, if people treated it as a collaboration instead of a battleground. DHowell (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a photo of the cast: http://vevmo.com/f187/rw-rr-challenge-2008-leaked-photo-1847/ It is all the people on the list that I previously stated would be on the cast: http://vevmo.com/f187/real-world-road-rules-challenge-panama-2008-a-1692/ I think that alone makes the source much more viable. Hard to beat photographic evidence! Maybe you could help me get an article together based on this information being you seem to be in the know.....and I am not "quitting" like I mentioned previously. I will continue to help update and maintain articles in this genre as I know what I am talking about when it comes to this subject matter and enjoying helping the community. And no, there is no hurry. I hear this is slated for a fall release, leaving all sorts of time to get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zredsox (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Black Kite/Archive16

Our concern was archived without even receiving a response. I recommend considering a deletion review. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cheshire Cat in popular culture

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cheshire Cat in popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AADD

I've just come across your suggestions from last October at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#"That's what categories are for" and "Delete and merge". I'm strongly in favour of incorporating those, and I think you've written them very well (although FWIW I disagree with the last sentence of "lists v. categories" for reasons given by myself and others at Wikipedia talk:Lists#Categories vs Lists).

What happened to those proposals? So far as I can tell the discussion petered out, without being followed up. AndyJones (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Playboy MarilynMonroe photo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Playboy MarilynMonroe photo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in Music

Preface: I am the same IP editor as the one to whose comment you responded at the bottom of the AfD discussion. I was not trying to argue that the comparison was not legitimate. Rather, I meant to suggest that evaluations of articles are independent of one another. There is no Supreme Court of Wikipedia, and AfDs do not set precedent for one another. On the whole, we probably agree for the most part on articles and deletion (I do not consider myself an inclusionist, but I revile deletionism): note my response to a Speedy Delete vote here: "Offending section removed. Focus on the article's potential for an article, not its current state. Is the subject notable? Can it be a good article?" That is the criterion I judge articles on. In my opinion, WP:CRYSTAL details why the 2009 in Music article could not be a good article at this time, regardless of the effort put into it. For example, I'd love to add The Never Ending Way of ORWarriOr to that list, but I'd have also added it to a similar article in 2006 and 2007. The album just didn't show up . I can only imagine the release date crystalballing for Duke Nukem Forever -- the original release date was 1998 and the game still hasn't showed up. Saying that something exists is fine; saying that something will be released at a certain time is not. I hope that clarifies what I meant. Cheers. 83.203.178.78 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, dismissing arguments based on other stuff exists" is only proper when illegitimate comparisons are being made, so by bringing it up, you were effectively arguing that the comparison was not legitimate. Your argument to ignore precedent would seem to essentially say we should ignore everything else that happens on Wikipedia and leave every article's deletion up to the personal ideosyncratic whims of whoever shows up in each debate. Sure, AfDs do not set a binding precedent, but they do provide additional evidence of where consensus lies. It is something that ought to be weighed when making a decision. It is also how policies and guidelines are generally formed, from the prior precedent of what is done according to consensus.

Second, what in WP:CRYSTAL makes you think that a "2009 in music" article written in mid-2008 could not be a good article? None of the information in the article was "unverifiable speculation"—all info had sources that could be checked to verify whether they substantiated a claim that an album was scheduled or planned for a 2009 release. I personally checked and provided sources for 12 of them. This is certainly a subject which has "wide interest" which "would merit an article if the event had already occurred"; we already have an article for every year in music in recent history, and a "2009 in music" will certainly exist in 2010. "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." There was no original research here; no editor inserted their own opinion or analysis. We have an article for the 2016 Summer Olympics, even though that is 8 years away, because we have sourced verifiable information about the plans for that event. It is possible that the event may never happen; natural disaster, war, or some other unforseen circumstance may prevent it from happening, nonetheless we have an article. Duke Nukem Forever has an article even though it has yet to be released, and the article has information about all the planned release dates, even though those dates passed without a release. If you have a reliable source for a release date for The Never Ending Way of ORWarriOr, then it should be in the 2008 in music or "2009 in music" article as apporpriate. However, it should not be added to 2007 in music, for the same reason we don't list the Soviet Union in List of countries, even though plenty of reliable sources (from before 1989) say the Soviet Union is a country. DHowell (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, let me clarify. I am saying that there is no reason to consider this-happened-to-X regardless of what X is and what happened to it. The point is that Wikipedia is based on policy and consensus rather than precedent. Statistically, there are tens of thousands of active Wikipedia editors and any AfD is only the consensus of a few. I am inclined to believe that the users who were involved in the 2008 article AfD would also argue that the 2009 article should exist. The statistical significance of this consensus relative to the consensus of the all Wikipedia editors is practically nil. That is, in terms of attaining consensus, any group is only as accurate as the next, and using any other group as evidence merely contributes to bias. To be honest, I'm having a difficult time explaining this without using mathmatical examples (and likely quite a bit of annoying statistics which you probably wouldn't understand the significance of unless you've had a significant university-level statistics class). Let's try a simple analogy: The average group decides A. One group decides B. A new group, therefore, when presented an article, still suggests A. Now, if they consider another decision, they are simply biased. If it is the outlier, the odds of selecting the outlier are much higher. If it is not, the odds of selecting the outlier are diminished. While the net effect is 0, it only introduces greater variance rather than contributing to consensus (and the greater variance is thus contrary to consensus). I probably lost you there, but on the off-chance you see what I'm saying, I'll leave it.

The problem I have from WP:CRYSTAL is related to this line: "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." The implication of that is that even if you have a source suggesting it, you're just re-creating speculation. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." How certain are you of any of the events in the article? They are planned events, much like the planned release of Duke Nukem Forever, but they are not almost certain to occur. I recall Prime STH simply killing an album which was nearly ready for release because they didn't like the sound. Pushed it all back a year. The 2008 in Music article was not pure speculation but rather fact-based speculation. The 2016 Summer Olympics, by contrast, is almost certain to occur and preparations have already begun (for example, the selection of the host). As for the Soviet Union, of course it would be on the List of countries in 1985, but were it to be added to a List of countries in 2010 in 1985 (especially given the instability at the time), one might dispute its inclusion. That's the evaluation that must be made. 83.203.178.78 (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Wikipedia is based on policy and consensus rather than precedent". False dichotomy. Policy is the documentation of precedent, based on consensus. What is the purpose of WP:OUTCOMES, if Wikipedia ignores precedent?

Re: "Statistically, there are tens of thousands of active Wikipedia editors and any AfD is only the consensus of a few." All the more reason we should not ignore the opinions of those who don't happen to be present at each discussion. Otherwise we might as well make decisions based on flipping a coin.

Re: "I am inclined to believe that the users who were involved in the 2008 article AfD would also argue that the 2009 article should exist." Right, so the deletion of this article is just a random event based on who showed up, not an actual decision "based on policy and consensus".

Re: Your statistical analysis. Nice bit of original research there. But do you have any published sources to support your claims? I believe your analysis is flat-out wrong. In your analogy you say "the average group decides A". What do you mean by that? Do you mean that there is a greater chance that a group will decide A than all other decisions? That there is a greater chance it will decide A than B? That there is a greater chance that it will decide A than any other particular decision? Or that there is some mythical "average group" that will always decide A, if it truly represents the greater population? I'll assume you mean that a group, if given a choice between A and B, will more likely pick A than B. Ok. Then you say "one group decides B". Is this one group out of two? One group out of many? Is there a chance any other group would decide B, or is this the only group that would decide B? I'll assume you mean that one particular group happened to decide B. Then you say "therefore", as if it is a logical deduction that if an "average group decides A" and "one group decides B" that a "new group" would decide A. Huh? Perhaps you meant "a new group, being more representative of the average group, decides A". Ok. Then you say "if they consider another decision, they are simply biased". Perhaps more biased than they would have been if they did not consder the other decision, but certainly less biased than the original group that decided B. But what if we presumed instead that the "average group" would decide B? Then the decision would be less biased, because they would be considering a decision of the more representative group. Without knowing what "the average group" would decide, and without any other data, there is no way to determine which of the two groups is more biased. Therefore, the second group is just as likely to be countering bias as introducing bias by considering the decision of the other group. However, "All other things being equal, smaller samples ... have greater sampling error than larger samples."[1] So the two groups put together should have less bias than each group by itself, on average. If one of the groups is an outlier, the odds of it being selected are far less than the odds of a representative group being selected, if selected at random. Of course, in AfDs, we are not talking about random samples, but samples with "volunteer bias", but this is inherent in the way we make decisions. However, even with volunteer bias, larger samples should still be more representative of a larger group than smaller samples. So the net effect of considering other decisions is not zero, and it actually introduces less variance by marginalizing the outliers. And this is the way WP:CONSENSUS works on Wikipedia! (And don't assume that I wouldn't understand university-level statistical analysis; if you've got some, present it, preferably from reliable sources; because your simplistic analogy is failing to convince me).

Re: "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative." How is this anything like listing what albums are scheduled or being planned for release next year? People speculate on who team managers will pick, but it is usually not based on what the team managers themselves are saying. On the other hand, when Peter Hook says, about the debut Freebass album, "It's going to be out next March or I am going to f*cking top myself"[2], why shouldn't we report that, until he says something different, or reliable sources say something different, or March 2009 passes with no album release? That's not speculation, that's reporting on verifiable present facts about the future. It is no different than reporting on the plans for the 2016 Summer Olympics. On the other hand, Duke Nukem Forever has been delayed so many times that they no longer even give a release date, and they probably would no longer be considered a reliable source if they did. If a band like Prime STH pushes an album back, than it is a simple Wiki edit to remove the album from one year list, and put it in another, if appropriate. None of this involves "crystal balls" of any kind. By the way, while we have a List of sovereign states in 1985, we don't currently have a List of sovereign states in 2010 because such a list would be pure speculation. It is the nature of countries that they don't normally plan to exist or not exist a year an a half in the future (most countries plan to exist forever). Significant country changes happen for reasons that are largely unpredictable, or at least any predictions would be highly speculative. And for the most part a list of countries in 2010 would be largely the same as a list of countries in 2008. On the other hand, we do have 2010 in spaceflight, because NASA is usually pretty predictable about what they will be doing a couple years from now. DHowell (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Hello, an article whose AFD you formerly commented on is again up for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mandarin_Chinese_profanity#Mandarin_Chinese_profanity. Badagnani (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

KUPN (now KCDO)

From your comments on Talk:KTVD: it turns out you were right two years ago after all - KUPN became an independently-programmed station in Summer 2006. I have removed most of the KUPN references from the KTVD article, and have created a new KCDO article using the information removed from KTVD. On the KTVD talk page, you indicated that there was a reference by Backchannelmedia that shows the programming splitting in August 2006. Did you happen to have a link to that, assuming you can still remember it? Thanks! dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Backchannelmedia, which is the only site I've found which carries more than a week's worth of past program listings, has been deleting its older archived program listings, so the link I had is no longer valid. At the time I commented in Talk:KTVD, the site had listings back going back to July 2006, but now it only seems to go back to June 2008. It is unfortunate that no TV listings service seems to recognize the historical value of archiving such listings, and given now that newspapers have been eschewing printed listings in favor of the online listing services, I fear the TV listings of today may be lost forever to future television historians. DHowell (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times logotype copyright

Hi there,

A year ago, you apparently added “copyright ineligible” tags to the Los Angeles Times logotype image, Image:Los Angeles Times.svg, which had previously been claimed to be fair use. At some point, some user moved the image to Commons, and now the image at English Wikipedia is being deleted. My fear is that the Commons image will at some point in the future be deleted for copyright reasons, leaving us without either image.

So, my question is, can you explain why logotypes are ineligible for copyright? I had never heard that, and I am rather skeptical of it. Are there US court cases which have established that logotypes cannot be copyrighted?

—jacobolus (t) 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any court cases, but the Federal regulation (37 CFR § 202.1) seems clear:

§ 202.1 Material not subject to copyright.

The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:

(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents; ...

The Los Angeles Times logo is a "short phrase" rendered in a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring", and thus is not eligible for copyright. It's certainly subject to trademark protection, but not copyright protection. DHowell (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. My impression was that logotypes counted for more than "mere variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring"; I’d like to see some lawyer’s comment on a similar logotype before coming to any such conclusion about where the law stands. In any case, might there not also be a problem with putting trademarked logotypes on the Commons? —jacobolus (t) 01:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You can always try to ask Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia lawyer, for a comment on this. As far as trademarked logotyps being OK on Commons, the consensus there seems to be to allow them: see commons:Category:Trademarks, commons:Category:Logos, commons:Template:PD-textlogo, and commons:Template:Trademarked. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with there being a copy of the logo on English Wikipedia as well, but then I personally don't understand the whole effort to move all copyright-free images to commons anyway. DHowell (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Freefmlogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Freefmlogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:E logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:E logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KYOU.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:KYOU.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LATV.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:LATV.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market‎

We could use a more updated way of rating the markets and independent of Nielsen and the 1970s Aribitron list. User:TripEricson uses Census data for this system to break down "market" boundaries on his site rabbitears.info. This would include all 211 Nielsen markets broken down into 259 markets using Trip's system. It would be different, but it would be independent. Give it a shot? - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 19, 2008 @ 12:06

I've replied to his message on my Talk page. TripEricson (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)