Wikipedia

Gavia immer

Joined 17 July 2006

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gavia immer (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 7 March 2011 ((wikibreak)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 13 years ago by Dboje in topic plese stop deleting antenarrative scholarship
Learn more about this page

Welcome to my talk page!

  • Please use the Reply button to reply to a message, or add topic (+) to start a new section.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, instead, reply there.
    • Mention me using the "Mention a user" button in the Reply box or type out {{ping|Gavia immer}}.
    • I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • If you prefer to manually edit the page to post:
    • Use an accurate and appropriate heading.
    • Indent your comment by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Request

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have done a good deal of research, and written and created the new article, Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet. Can you now please remove Mission Earth from WP:Requested moves? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That looks like an excellent piece of work, especially for something that I know was worked up quite quickly. Nonetheless, I tend to think that Hubbard's sprawling whatchamacallit is the best-known use of the title. If nobody else has bothered to agree with me after another day or so, I'm willing to withdraw, but I'd to see whether others have a strong opinion on this first. I know that we both do have strong opinions, and Anthony Appleyard's comment doesn't have much depth to it, so it would be nice if the community had something to say on the matter. If there's no other opinion offered today, then I would be willing to withdraw, but not yet. — Gavia immer 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. And thank you for your kind words about my recent research and writing efforts. That is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jester

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could you explain why you moved Narrenfreiheit to Jester's privelege (spelling?) instead of Jester's privilege, which already existed ? I'm not aware of the spelling "privelege". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not aware of that spelling either, but evidently my fingers are. My mistake, entirely. Nonetheless, we do not need a one-line article on the German-language term "Narrenfreiheit", as I hope you would agree. I see you have already fixed the problem, so I guess that's that. — Gavia immer 04:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think it's all set now, except for expansion of the article-- which could be fun! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the fact is that I'm as shocked as you are that we have nothing on this topic other than the material at hand. — Gavia immer 04:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re:New Steven Brust image

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can understand that mentality, but when the creator is a noted artist in their own right, I think their identity is sometimes worth mentioning. The author of the lead image of Anne of Cleves is very much worth mentioning in the caption, for instance. Your call; I'm happy either way. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ANSI/VITA_40-2003

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I'm looking at ANSI/VITA_40-2003, trying to confirm the copyright problem. While I can see some problematic phrases in the Abstract, they could be fixed.

The main material reads as it was a straight copy and paste, but I'm not seeing the source. Can you help me out?--SPhilbrickT 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll see if I can find another publicly accessible page with more of the text on it, but it may take a minute - just replying so that you know I've seen this. In any case, it's plain enough to me that our article is just a text dump from the standard that this website sells for $50, probably done by an employee or associate of the website itself. — Gavia immer 01:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Update: this 2002 draft of the 2003 standard shares substantial language with the ANSI/VITA_40-2003 article. Presumably both of those have the text in common with the actual standard, which is not published under a free license. I'll look for a copy of the published standard, but it's probable that any such copy is itself a copyright violation. — Gavia immer 01:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, that looks good enough for me.--SPhilbrickT 01:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I hope you don't mind that I'm being ultra-cautious, when I read the article it was clearly a copy, but this is my first delete (not counting user requested), and I'd hate to start with a blunder.--SPhilbrickT 01:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're fine. I actually should have looked more closely at the URL I gave in the first place - I check copyright violations by searching for random distinctive phrases, and when I found that text on the publisher's website I didn't check closely enough to realize that my randomly-chosen phrase was just about the only matching text. That's what I get for half-assing it. — Gavia immer 01:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

OBAMA

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

您好! 我认为条目的注释篇幅太长，以至于有挤占正文的感觉，列示超长的注释实在没必要，隐藏它为的是更好地突出正文。我还认为隐藏注释并不会影响条目的品质，反而会使版面更好；况且隐藏的注释并不会对查阅参考来源构成障碍。这是我的观点。祝编辑愉快！JHH755 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm readding this because I think it's a legitimate message, but I can't speak Chinese, sorry. If you're trying to discuss the following edits: [1] [2], please be aware that English Wikipedia generally does not use hidden references and is unlikely to change that practice. Please don't hide reference sections on English Wikipedia. — Gavia immer 05:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and translated it for you. It is legit. Wow, that's a long link →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 05:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks for the translation link. That is very long, isn't it? — Gavia immer 05:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah—probably because of all the Chinese letters. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 06:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I studied your message, thank you! My above talk in English:"Hello! I think the notes layout for this article are too long to crowde the text, so I want to hide them in order to highlight the text better. I also believe that the hidden notes will not only affect the quality of this article, but also will make its text layout better. whatever,the notes hidden will not be an obstacle for checking sources of the article. This is my idea of dealing with long notes. Happy editing!"
  • I suggest the necessity for long notes layout including any languages’ articles may be discussed among editers. B.rgds!----JHH755 (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC) in Guangdong,P.R.CReply
Thank you very much for responding. Please do feel free to ask about this on the talk page of the article. I can tell you, however, that it has been discussed before, and my revert of your edit was based on previous discussion. That should not stop you from discussing this if you want to, but you should know what to expect. Again, thanks for the message in English. — Gavia immer 06:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greek insults

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I checked with a Greek-speaker who told me that the term which user: Athirostomos submitted... it actually is just a generic insult, and not an attack page on someone. Oops. DS (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, and I know you're getting undeserved shit-flinging over deletions just now. I hate sending this to AfD, but I've already sent it to AfD. — Gavia immer 17:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Eh, AfD is the place for uncertain stuff like this. At least this isn't some idiot trying to slander his school friends. DS (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, since he wasn't making an attack page, may I strongly suggest that you <s>strikethrough</s> the "don't make attack pages" warnings that you left on his talkpage? DS (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Done. — Gavia immer 17:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

File deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, about deleting the file File:Sade.jpg, I'm unsure what copyright tag to use. I'm sort of new here, so do you think you can help me find the right tag before deleting the photo? Thanks.--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Image use policy, but the short answer is that there is no "right tag". You may not claim images found on some random website as your own work. Moreover, Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted non-free images of living people, even under a claim of fair use. Please don't upload such images again. — Gavia immer 03:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Moreover, I see that you've already been through this with regard to File:Sade-pinkvest.jpg [3]. Again, don't do that. — Gavia immer 03:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Then what is an acceptable source for free images of living celebrities? Again, since I'm a relative newbie here, I'm unsure how to do all of this.--Dolphin Jedi (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are a few ways to obtain such images:
  1. Take a picture yourself. Quite a large number of our images of people were obtained this way.
  2. Find a picture that is explicitly labeled as being under the CC-BY-SA-3 license, or under a similar free license. Most images found on the web are not. Flickr allows creators to license their images this way, and you can sometimes find images of particular people there under an appropriate license. Note: most images in Flickr are not under free licenses, just as most images found on the web do not have free licenses. You will need to show proof that the image was licensed appropriately.
  3. Convince the copyright holder of an image to release it under a free license. The copyright holder is generally the person who took the picture, and not the person pictured. Again, if you do this you will have to provide proof that the image was released under a free license.
If all of the preceding look difficult, or if they seem to have unnecessary steps that you would rather skip, then I suggest a fourth option: don't upload images. Uploading images with incorrect attribution or copyright terms, or uploading images under a claim of fair use when we can't use them under a claim of fair use, are very serious matters, because any misuse of copyrighted material represents the possibility of legal action against Wikipedia. Moreover, misuse of non-free material threatens our mission to be a free encyclopedia. It is not an area to look for shortcuts or easy methods. Your collages of free material appear to be quite useful; if those were the only images that you contributed to Wikipedia, you would be improving the encyclopedia far beyond what you can accomplish by uploading images found in a web search. — Gavia immer 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, jerk!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If SineBot is smart enough to leave my edits alone, where do YOU get off? I don't suppose it's occurred to you that, if people don't sign something, it's because they don't want it signed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

^^Now that is funny! -- Kendrick7talk 05:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: Hangegg

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yeah, no prob. I generally prefer to edit logged out most of the time these days regardless, otherwise I find myself sucked into WP:BURO crap instead of just writing an encyclopedia. There comes a point where it just feels unproductive, no matter how much I try to defend WP:5P and what seems to me to plainly flow from it. Anyway, my edit stuck, so huzzah! -- Kendrick7talk 05:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

McCoy's "Quote"!

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Look at the reference, it is a reliable source! Look at the quote, it is McCoy's words! I didn't write the article, or make the quote! What else is required besides your and BZOK's approval? I didn't know you two OWNED the article!?! Let a contributor know next time! Shmucks! That's for calling me a vandal! 98.94.164.237 (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, after reading your talkpage, this is a No-No from you, "Yeah, and I know you're getting undeserved shit-flinging over deletions just now. I hate sending this to AfD, but I've already sent it to AfD. — Gavia immer". You appear to have a sense of entitlement and immunity to the 5 Pillars of etiquette here on Wikipedia. You seem to genuinely enjoy getting people angry and rub it in their face. Forget it with me, it will not stand! 98.94.164.237 (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Banned vs Blocked

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Look at the last issue - it was a block and not a Ban - get your facts correct, which is something you seem to struggle with! 74.243.170.247 (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Islamic views

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

When you merged them you forgot to bring over the categories. Also I'm not sure that Ishmael and Isaac should have been merged without some sort of discussion first. When Someone65 and Imadjafar were discussing the various articles neither one had any problem with Islamic prophets mentioned in the Qur'an having their own articles. Balaam and Hagar are a bit different as they are not in the Qur'an and Balaam was newly created and Hagar recently expanded. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 02:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there CambridgeBayWeather. Sorry I didn't respond sooner; you caught me while I was occupied with some real-life business. I can add the categories if that's desirable, but I chose not as a part of doing a minimal merge. That's easy enough to change (added later: I see you already added the categories). As far as which ones should be merged, I have gone solely by word count - if the main article and the "Islamic views" article are both lengthy, I don't see a need to merge them, but for topics where a merged article would be of a reasonable size, it's much better for neutrality purposes to have them under a single roof. I also have purposely avoided the articles where a deletion discussion is still open, so as not to make issues beyond those already present. If you have a specific article in mind that you feel I should avoid merging, I'm willing to listen to that as well, though by word count standards the Ishmael and Isaac mergers seem fine to me.
As a side point, I have essentially no opinion on particular content, except a preference for better writing and secondary sources. If the previously mentioned editors, or any other editor, wishes to edit the merged sections, they can do so without expecting interference from me. — Gavia immer 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
30 minutes isn't much time at all. After thinking about it overnight I don't think that it's really much of a problem having them merged together. It reminded me that I intended to stay out of content issues with Islamic article and stick to cleaning them up. Though over the last few days that has been a bit more difficult. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merging

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please don't merge the articles dealing with prophets! It is fine if articles are merged which are not prophets. But please revert the merging of Job, Ishmael and Jonah.--Imadjafar (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Imadjafar. As I mentioned above, I merged articles based solely on word count, not on any theological consideration. In general, in order to ensure neutrality, all of the religious perspectives on a particular religious figure should be in one article. Where an article is quite long, it is acceptable to split it, and so I did not merge any articles that would have had to be split again, but the shorter ones ought to be all together in one article. Please feel free to add any material to the merged articles that you feel is missing, including material that I trimmed in the merge. As I say, I did not perform the mergers along any particular theological lines, and so I have no theological perspective on what ought to be in the merged articles. I do feel strongly that neutrality ought to be respected, however, and the merging was done with that in mind. — Gavia immer 19:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand your point and I actually feel it is better, may I copy the information of Islamic view of Elijah and Islamic view of Elisha onto Elijah and Elisha, and may the original pages be removed, because I wan't to merge those two as well.--Imadjafar (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't object to either merge. At the time, because I was working on multiple merges, I did not wish to take the extra time needed to merge the longer articles, but if you can make it work then I support this idea for the same reason I wished to merge the others. — Gavia immer 07:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I see you have undone my rather brutishly executed page move. Well, thanks for that, to be honest I didn't really know how to correctly move whole pages as I haven't done that before. Thanks for that I guess. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please don't move pages the way you did before; it loses the page history, and we need the page history in order to comply with our own license. I see that you've opened up a move discussion now, which is the right way to do it - but even an undiscussed bold move using the "Move" tab is better than cutting and pasting. — Gavia immer 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I noticed. After reading the article on page moves, I tried to move the page, but quite frankly that didn't work, so I thought a move discussion would be a good idea. This also solves the issue of consensus, as what I tried to do was "reverting" a previous move that lacked any consensus. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's a long, long history of disputation around the topic of the Nanking Massacre on Wikipedia, so you're right that any big change needs consensus behind it before it is done. I haven't looked at this closely enough to see if you're right, but I have enough of an opinion on what is correct here that I will probably comment in the discussion later. — Gavia immer 03:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bach cantata move

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You moved a Bach cantata. Yes, you are right, the BWV # is not part of the title, but please respect that the project Classical music decided after long discussions to add the BWV # to the first line of EACH cantata to avoid disambigation needs. The titles can be seen in the template Bach cantata, and no title should be changed, or it will not show correctly in the template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a really terrible idea with a really terrible justification, and in any case it violates our naming conventions. If some WikiProject is going to insist on edit warring over such things, then I will not revert lest I be participating in an edit war - which state of affairs you should carefully distinguish from my believing that the present title is defensible. By the way, do you have a list of the articles that the WikiProject has decided to place at the wrong title? I can find out for myself, but it would be nice if I didn't have to make an effort. — Gavia immer 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Red-winged Blackbird

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

while undoing someone else's revision, you (inadvertently, I hope) undid my revision. I feel it is timely and pertinent and have added it back in. I am of course willing to discuss its presence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehan60188 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was not inadvertent. Firstly, material about a specific incident does not belong in the article, because it is not relevant to the description of the species that the article properly focuses on. At most, this would be appropriate for a separate article on the incident. Secondly, there probably shouldn't be a separate article on the incident. There's a bunch of "hey, some birds died" stuff running around the Internet right now, but there's no evidence that there's anything to it, or that the incident is notable. Thirdly, even in a separate article on the incident, your material would represent undue weight on a fringe theory, especially since it uses an unreliable source and states baldly that conclusions from that source are true. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:NPOV, and Wikipedia:No original research, and don't readd the material without much better sourcing. — Gavia immer 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have quoted you

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have quoted your powerful argument at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner#Image. I hope you dont mind. Active Banana (bananaphone 23:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind. Thanks for letting me know as a courtesy, though. — Gavia immer 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bloomberg Businessweek Glock Article reference

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for finding and posting reference to the online version of the article as well as fixing up my less than stellar looking reference.

I just received the paper version in the mail yesterday and found the article was a great take on the development of the Glock.

Again, thanks.

-Jason

Jasonanaggie (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I don't remember doing this, so you may have mistaken someone else's edit for mine. Of course, it's also possible that I posted this and forgot about it, because I do think the history of Glock pistols is an interesting topic. I suspect, though, that you want to thank someone else. — Gavia immer 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I really thought it was you; well thanks for your honesty. I was trying to find the person that altered the reference that I created and it seemed that it was you. But if not, I suggest the article if you are interested in the topic, you can read it here: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/11_04/B4212magazine.htm

Best. -Jason Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the current version of that reference (with URL) was added by Whywhenwhohow in

this diff if you want to drop them a note. In the meantime, that does look like a well-done article, and it's especially good as a reference for the magazine. If you're ever having trouble researching a change like that, by the way, try using [wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php Wikiblame], which will typically narrow it down pretty fast. — Gavia immer 07:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mystery solved

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for pointing out that other discussion. The trail leads to here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I guess I should have read through the entire thread before doing my own research. I see that was already uncovered. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I honestly should have pointed out in the ANI thread that we had a general source for where these images come from. We still don't know what's up with all the uploads, though. — Gavia immer 04:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think it's a coordinated campaign by that website, or the group behind it, to claim one of their members as the most-photographed person on Wikipedia. Did you notice that all the images came from the same camera? (look at the extended details -- spot-checking, they were all the same) The IPs were coming from a lot of locations; one on Spanish wiki was from Venezuela -- but they're all adding the same pictures. You can actually get the person's name from the website (see the picture credits). Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's pretty much what I think as well, though I hadn't done quite as much digging for details. My big fear, though, is that spamming Wikipedia with this one face is just Phase 1, and Phase 2 is promoting this guy as a spooky meme at Wikipedia's expense via posts on Reddit or Slashdot or whatever ("The same person is in every California article on Wikipedia and nobody knows why!"). That's the main reason I want this cut off at the knees - we aren't a vehicle for that kind of stuff, and the first time we are, everyone will keep trying to treat us that way. — Gavia immer 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Talkback

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Gavia immer. You have new messages at Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's talk page.
Message added 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
 
Hello, Gavia immer. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Active users sought

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I'm Ace. And I kinda need your help. I'm trying to build consensus over at Talk:John Byrne#Requested move. So far, not so good. I just need to find people willing to express an opinion here. I didn't think it'd be this hard. Eh. I guess this is just a slow peiod. Ah well. If you can top by in the next 24 hours, that'd be great. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fastenal edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. You edited the Fastenal page and your edits were helpful. But you also deleted the sponsorship section almost entire. I don't know why you did that, but I did replace it. If you feel that section needs to be smaller, I invite you to talk about it on the Fastenal talk page instead of section blanking. Fleetham (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of List of suicides in fiction for deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article List of suicides in fiction is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

cropped images

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,


I have never contacted anyone through Wikipedia before.

I hope this works.

My name is David Horvitz. I recently did a road trip up the entire California coast with the hopes of putting up images of California's beaches onto Wikipedia that didn't already have photos up (I also put some ones up on pages that did have photos up too).

It seems I did something wrong and they were all taken down.

Oh well.

Anyways, I saw that you had cropped some of them so that the figure wasn't in the photo. I tried to look for these but it seems they have been deleted.

If it is possible, can you email me the files of these? If it is OK w/ you, I want to post these cropped images to a blog. I guess, they are my images, but since you did the cropping, I wanted to ask you first.

The blog is going to show the images I took, and talk about how they were removed, and show different examples of what happened, including showing your crops. It's more sociological than commentary, so don't worry.....

My email is hikarusaru@gmail.com

It kind of sucks that I drove 3000 miles to make photos of small beaches and they are all gone, but oh well!



Thanks!

- David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhorvitzapple (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

List

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I saw you were involved with a previous nomination for deletion of List of suicides in fiction, and felt you should be informed of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey again. I was very impressed with your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination), and, once this article is sadly inevitably kept, hope you can work to improve it with me. I agree that most of these so-called "inclusionists" will talk about fixing up the article and then never touch it again, but I thought maybe we could work together to make it more encyclopedic. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I plan to take another swipe at the list after this discussion closes. The sad thing is that my comment is now followed by a "Keep because I'll fix it" comment. Oh well. — Gavia immer 01:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Want to start a discussion on the page about making a move to Suicide in Fiction?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I actually did a bold move, but it got reverted. If you want to start a move discussion, I'll certainly support it. — Gavia immer 22:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Done.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Speedy deletion nomination of Shit (Angel)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Shit (Angel), to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Gavia immer 06:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sam Hocevar

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why would an image of Sam Hocevar working at a Debian booth be worse/less useful than an image of his face as he sits in his bathroom?

Also, why is adminship trivial, especially if being a Wikimedia board member is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPrice (talk • contribs) 01:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia adminship is trivial, in a way that sitting on the Board is not, because it's much easier and more common, and doesn't mean very much. As to the images, the one I reverted to is not great, but the one you added has lousy composition and lacks detail. If you want to add it to the article, at least don't remove a better image when you do so. — Gavia immer 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
The image I'm using is an image of him performing an official function as a spokesperson of Debian, and is more relevant than whatever "function" he's performing with that face in his bathroom, and thus I think it makes more sense in the article. As for adminship being trivial, plenty of Wikipedia administrators with their own articles have a blurb mentioning that they're admins. Heck, your userpage has a box saying that you are an editor. nprice (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to Protest the Deletion of Antenarrative as being the initiative of a competitor named Dave Snowden

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Gavia immer: 


  I have read through the rules for deletion of web pages on Wikipedia.

I believe that competing storytelling hosts of pages on Wikipedia have conspired to delete my page, and I hope you are an unwitting participant in this. I therefore introduce the following in evidence, and ask you reconsider

I also traced the history. The initial call for deletion was made by Dave Snowden:

"Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC) • * Delete - Agree with Snowded. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)"

A colleague did an IP search and 'Snowded' is in fact Dave Snowden.

I believe this deletion initiative to be an act of retaliation by a colleague who is attempting to exorcise competing conceptions of storytelling, of which 'antenarrative' is an established domain. It is retaliation for a review of Snowden's work that I published in a top-tier academic journal.

See -- Boje, D. M. 2006d. The Dark Side of Knowledge Reengineering Meets Narrative/Story. Organization: The Critical Journal of Organization, Theory and Society. Vol. 13, No. 5, 739-745 http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/690/papers/Knowledge_Reengineering_Review_Boje.pdf

Boje's Critique of Snowden's chapter in an academic journal publication Snowden's objection to the 'antenarrative page' is expressed as follows: "* Delete per nomination, without third party evidence of use/adoption and some balancing criticism this reads like a promotional piece; other related articles look to be extracts from Boje. Full disclosure, I know of Boje's work and am involved in the field of organisational narrative. --Snowded TALK 07:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)"

The page was not backed up, but as I recall, it was indeed backed up by third party evidence, i.e. the published theory and empirical articles on the topic of antenarrative:

Here is the published work on 'antenarrative.

Barge, J.K. (2004) `Antenarrative and Managerial Practice' , Communication Studies 55(1): 106-27.

Collins, D. & Rainwater, K. 2005. "Managing change at Sears: a sideways look at a tale of corporate transformation". Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18, No. 1: 16-30.

Dalcher, D. & Drevin, L. (2003). "Learning from information systems failures by using narrative and antenarrative methods". Proceedings of SAICSIT, pages 137-142.

Eriksen, M. & Colleagues, 2006. “Antenarratives about Leadership and Gender in the U.S. Coast Guard.” Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 5(4), 162-173.

Eriksen, M., Van Echo, K., Harmel, A., Kane, J., Curran, K., Gustafson, G., & Schults, R. 2005. “Conceptualizing and Engaging in Organizational Change as an Embodied Experience within a Practical Reflexivity Community of Practice: Gender Performance at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.” Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 4 (1), 75-80.

Grow, Jean. M. 2008. The gender of branding: early Nike women's advertising a feminist antenarrative. Women's Studies in Communication, September 22. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-189653396.html

Vickers, M. H. (2005). Illness, work and organisation: Postmodern perspectives, antenarratives and chaos narratives for the reinstatement of voice. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organisation Science, 3(2), pp. 1-15.

Yolles, M. (2007). The dynamics of narrative and antenarrative and their relation to story. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 20, No. 1: 74 – 94.

Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. Forthcoming. On the narrative construction of multinational corporations: An antenarrative analysis of legitimation and resistance in a cross-border merger. Organization Science. Published online in Articles in Advance, November 30, 2010. http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract/orsc.1100.0593v1


Here is my own work on the topic of antenarrative, which by way of full disclosure is a theory and method that I invented.

Boje, D.M. (2001a). Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2001b). Flight of Antenarrative in Phenomenal Complexity Theory, Tamara, Storytelling Organization Theory. September 20th, paper to honor Professor Hugo Letiche and his work on Phenomenal Complexity Theory, for the September 24th and 25th Conference on Complexity and Consciousness at Huize Molenaar (Korte Nieuwstraat 6) in the old center of Utrecht, Netherlands. http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/ante/flight_of_antenarrative.htm

Boje, D. M. (2001c). “Antenarrating, Tamara, and Nike Storytelling.” Paper prepared for presentation at “Storytelling Conference” at the School of Management; Imperial College, 53 Prince’s Gate, Exhibition Road, London, July 9th, 2001. On line at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/ethnostorytelling.htm

Boje, D. M. (2002). "Critical Dramaturgical Analysis of Enron Antenarratives and Metatheatre". Plenary presentation to 5th International Conference on Organizational Discourse: From Micro-Utterances to Macro-Inferences, Wednesday 24th - Friday 26th July (London).

Boje. D. M. 2005. Empire Reading of Manet's Execution of Maximilian: Critical Visual Aesthetics and Antenarrative Spectrality. Tamara Journal. Vol 4 (4): 118-134. http://peaceaware.com/388/articles/20052.pdf Boje, D. M. (2007a). Chapter 13 Living Story: From Wilda to Disney, pp.330-354. Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a New Methodology. Edited by Jean Clandinin, London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2007b). "The Antenarrative Cultural Turn in Narrative Studies" in Mark Zachry & Charlotte Thralls (Eds.) Communicative Practices in Workplaces and the Professions: Cultural Perspectives on the Regulation of Discourse and Organizations.

Boje, D. M. 2007c. Globalization Antenarratives. Pp. 505-549, Chapter 17 in Albert Mills, Jeannie C. Helms-Mills & Carolyn Forshaw (Eds). Organizational Behavior in a Global Context. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Boje, D. M. (2008a). Storytelling Organizations, London: Sage.

Boje, D. M. (2010). Towards a postcolonial storytelling theory that interrogates tribal peoples’ Material-Agential-Storytelling ignored in management and organization studies. Under review, and working paper available from dboje@nmsu.edu

Boje (forthcoming). Antenarrative in management research. The Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research: London (2,500 words). Accepted 2006. Draft available at http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/690/papers/Antenarrative%20in%20Management%0research%20May%2014%2005.pdf

Boje, D. M. & Baskin, K. (2010). Dancing to the Music of Story. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press. See Chapter 1 on complexity.

Boje, D. M. (2011). Shaping the Future of Storytelling in Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook. London: Routledge (release date is March 2011).

Boje, D. M. & Grace Ann Rosile (2002). Enron Whodunit? Ephemera. Vol 2(4), pp. 315-327.

Boje, D. M. & Grace Ann Rosile (2003). Life Imitates Art: Enron’s Epic and Tragic Narration. Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 17 (1): 85-125.

Boje, D. M., Rosile, G.A., Durant, R.A. & Luhman, J.T. 2004 "Enron Spectacles: A Critical Dramaturgical Analysis". Special Issue on Theatre and Organizations edited by Georg Schreyögg and Heather Höpfl, Organization Studies, 25(5):751-774.

Boje, D. M.; Rosile, G. A.; & Gardner, C. L. 2007. "Antenarratives, Narratives and Anaemic Stories" Chapter 4, pp. 30-45, Storytelling in Management, Editors: Ms. Nasreen Taher and Ms. Swapna Gopalan, Publisher: The Icfai University Press, India, First Edition: 2007 (Note: was based upon Paper presented in Showcase Symposium, Academy of Management,. Mon Aug 9 2004 in New Orleans).

Smith, William L.; Boje, David M.; & Melendrez, Kevin D, (2010) "The financial crisis and mark-to-market accounting: An analysis of cascading media rhetoric and storytelling", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 7 Iss: 3, pp.281 – 303. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboje (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Response

I didn't propose the deletion of the article. I supported its deletion for the reasons given by the nominator and declared the fact that I knew Boje at the time although strictly I didn't need to but Boje's sensitivities are know to those of us in the field so I was careful. My identity is also public so I am not sure about why an IP check was needed or if it is proper for someone to do so - is the colleague a checkuser? For the record I don't regard Boje as a competitor. He has some interesting material which many of us in the field reference from time to time but I am not aware of competing with him in academic or commercial circles, nor do I think it likely that it would happen in the future. --Snowded TALK 19:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

plese stop deleting antenarrative scholarship

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Gavia

You seem to be working in league with Dave Snowden to remove all things Antenarrative from the Wikipedia

This is quite narrow minded, in that there is a goodly amount of published work, that is not authored by me in top-tier journals around the world.

Why are you doing this?


david boje — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboje (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavia_immer&oldid=417599884"