User talk:Testales

AV

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"fans of a particular person"

I meant nothing disparaging with that phrase, just observing a general phenomenon. The area doesn't really matter: fans of a sports figure will argue that his image during his sporting days is critical, fans of an actor will argue that his appearance during a particular filming was critical, fans of a singer will argue that her appearance during the creation of an individual album was critical. I don't think "Japanese porn" is inherently less notable of a genre than any other (with the exception of the issue that a lot of these articles have sourcing problems, but that's a different issue). I can assure you that most of the images I have deleted or nominated for deletion are fair-use images used to illustrate the biographies of singers and Disney Channel stars.—Kww(talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not mad at you because of this or something but as you threw that in again and it is also understandable to think I am complaining because images have been deleted of subjects where I am a fan of, I thought it would be a good idea to prove that this (at least this time ;) ) is not the case. On the other hand I am also convinced that you have should have a certain obsession to write a good article and that those "fans" are also often experts in their small area who after all share their knowledge even it is only about a console game. Now when I see that some people delete unblieveable amounts of content (without ever adding anything) just for not beeing perfectly sourced (if that is even possible in that area), lack (subjectivly seen) importance or could be deleted due to a very strict interpretation of a policy or guide that makes me a bit sad. Especially if the actual motivation is - as indicated by the guy at ANI - to remove topics that they do not like. If you look at the activies of most editors, there is a certain balance between deleting, fixing and adding. But I am just unsure about the motivation of people who only delete. Finally Wikipedia is not been build on deleting and even if it has grown I doubt that it follows the orginal idea to simply delete everything which is not perfect from start, especially if the deleting editor never even tries to improve it, always pointing at the contributor who is in most cases much less familiar with the many "rules" of Wikipedia. Aside the point that Wikipedia is not a RS either. Not all articles have the same importance and the same applies for all facts claimed, some will certainly be challenged and need a good sourcing and others are not THAT important. So there should be certain sensitivity when to enforce maximum pedantism and when not. What's for example the point to remove the eyecolor, birth location or even the birthday if it is not or only poorly sourced? If it is wrong, then be it. Nobody get's hurt. Some people seem to like to clear infoboxes because of that, no matter whether you can easily find the same information on many, many other sites which may be not perfectly reliable but work for the most cases. This refering to WP:V - but wouldn't be that against "If rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them."? Especially if it comes to a point where a lady stumbles over her own article on Wikipedia, sees it full of errors, corrects them but gets reverted instantly, even though there was no really "contentious" data supplied. I do not expect we see her back and have doubts that the drastic and quick reverting has helped the project here, be there a COI or not. So it's more about the attitude than the rules. I also know that the requiements for BLP are higher for a reason but due to either the overly strict interpretation or total ignorance of a single word, the word "contentious" at least WP:P* has come to a total halt. Every IP who adds something gets simply reverted due to this or because of beeing "trivial". The only progress I see is with the Japanese articles and it's somewhat ridiculous to have detailed and well written articles (although POSSIBLY poorly sourced) about actors who are ONLY active and known in Japan while nearly everything else gets reduced to stubs. Even if I have absolutly no interesst in Japanese actors I have to say that IF I would be interessted, I would really enjoy reading those comprehensive articles. I also think even if they maybe poorly sourced, they do not contain material that I would declare as beeing contentious, that's simply another very elastic word. I have recently tried to find a more common base which kind of material to keep and which not, starting with the most easy part "Filmographies" but even this has already at least (conservatively estimated) caused at least like 20 A4 pages of discussion all in all (if it would be printed out) and still no result. So what I would like to see is some better base to decide when to keep something, especially if there is a such big difference from what can be read and understood by an unbiased new editor and the actual common practice like in the case of NFC. Testales (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

?

I dont understand ur point? --Vinie007 18:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Emri: Adelina" that's wrong. Nevermind can remove it myself but I thought you work in the albanian Wikipedia too, so I dropped you a note. Testales (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

When u will release the article? --Vinie007 23:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I currently can't as it still doesn't match the so called relevance criterias here. It may be a different case for the Albanian Wikipedia but I don't speak the language so I didn't edit anything there so far. As the current criteria here are mainly based on awards and I expect that there will be such awards before the end of the year I am still preparing an update. If that does not happen based on the current rules I must assume that the article I initially prepared is not wanted in the English Wikipedia and act accordingly... Testales (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Sarah Louise Young

Hi,

I'm new here. I found that the Sarah Louise Young page had been deleted, and when I investigated a bit discovered that it was because she was considered not notable. One of the criteria for notability was awards, so I searched for her name with 'awards' in Google, and found a French wikipedia page that listed some. I've added those to the entry you're working on. This might be enough to have it relisted. I hope I haven't gone against protocol in some way; if so, no offense intended. Fergus Velour (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of her awards and I can also remember quite some media presence. Maybe you should also read what I wrote to the closing administrator here. As I had expected that article was step by step deleted by certain "quality improving" people and finally considered as not notable. You can contact me also via email for further details. Bascially it's just hard to prove all the facts of the very nice article that it has been before especially when you look at the very strict rules for WP:BLP. So please check the history and see what and why it has been removed before simply adding back that kind of material. There is also a high chance that the same will happen to the article of her "predecessor". I found already some references as shown at the administrators talk page. If you are interessted I'd prefer that you contact me via e-mail ("E-mail this user" on the left) especially as I currently do not have much time for Wikipedia work. Testales (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See e-mail. Note last sentence in particular. Fergus Velour (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I spent 5 hours editing your sandbox article, then copied it to Sarah Young. I didn't change the content much. It's very difficult to find sources on the Internet; her fame was mostly pre-Internet and often is in other languages. --Juventas (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your changes were actually minor indeed, grammar and formating. You didn't find a single new source for proving a fact. You see, that's why the article was orignally deleted. Moreover the idea of userfication is to give a user an option to work on an article in his or her user namespace while having an intact history. After that an article can be officially requested for undeletion, usually with WP:DRV. Maybe an adminstrator would do this too if there are substantical changes which is not the case here. So if you are new or unsure about this process you could have contacted me here or via e-mail first instead of re-creating a new copy without any history and where none of the formal deletion reasons have been addressed. In case you don't know, her homepage counts as WP:SPS and is therefore also not a perfect source either. All in all there are still no good sources and so the article will proably earlier or later get deleted again. That's surely not a satisfiying situation as many people at least here in Germany, France and UK still remember her as she was in mainstream TV too and there are even erotic shops were named after her. Testales (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. You are correct about everything. I saw someone added the awards in your sandbox, so I figured that took care of WP:N. I wasn't aware there was other issues. Do you appreciate or object to my edits in your sandbox (I could create my own)? I have succeeded in finding old, non-Internet sources for other articles, but it is time consuming. --Juventas (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The last edit by the other user was a "quick shot" too, just see above. I would totally appreciate it if you like to edit this article in "my" sandbox, actually that's the idea of userfication, to work with others outside of the article space while preserving the history, not to personally "reserve" an article. At least I understand it that way. :) I just saw that you have already reverted your change in the main space main space, I think that's indeed better for now. Unfortunately due to my new job I currently can't do much here. I found a book series about adult star facts and I think the German Spiegel magazine - which has a complete digital online archive - mentioned her too in some issues but I somehow lost my notes on that. I wasn't sure if the books were suitable anyway as they may have gotten their info online too, maybe you can find someting better, starting with google scholar. And yes, you are right, it's very time consuming and it especially sucks that these award givers don't even list the actors who won in the earlier years (online). Sorry for currently not beeing of real help. But if you wante to share any ideas or have questions, feel free to contact me via e-mail (see left on this talk page) at any time (though I'll be on vacations for the next weeks). Testales (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your taking the time to alert me that I was being discussed, and appreciate more your recognizing that I have heard the tired and inaccurate old saw "he'll keep anything" far too often... and from folks who would know better had they done their homework. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

About the model and the grandmother

Please see this discussion. Just as with a use of the image of a young Shirley Temple in the article about the person, your use of the years-younger image of a Miss World as representative of what granted her notability was likely spot on... for if her notability was for being a former Miss World, it would indeed be appropriate to use an image of her AS Miss World... if the image met the caveats of having been previously published outside the project, met general Wikipedia content standards and was encyclopedic, met image use policy, and ONLY if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Doesn't take a genius to determine that a picture of a grandma would not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is not really much discussion about it and the article itself only contains public domain material, so the "deletion team" and especially certain user cannot get active here. The WP:NFC#UULP exception was originally quickly and rather undisputed added in "better times", without much discussion and I mean well, it looks logical and one would expect that it indeed doesn't take a genius to see that totally outdated pictures would be of no use in some cases. But in practice this criteria is apparently completely ignored. So that it is why I wanted to get a definitive solution for it by either removing it or actually use it. I sacrificed large parts of my vacation for that matter beeing curious how some people would defeat logical contradictions. I even took it so far that it should look somewhat ridciulous to an outside viewer that such a simple topics has to be discussed that verbose. If you are interessted, you can read the story here. But it's simply hopless with he current "crew" there. They came up with a examples like a very old ex-baseball player who is surely not known "for his earlier visual appearance" and furthermore still in public, then with Harrison Ford who is also still active an another guy, who seems a favorite of one of those people there but would also not be allowed to have NFC pictures in his article following their argumention and additional requirements. With "additional requirements" they were meaning that the visual apperance must have been discussed in notable secondary sources. The only example they brought here that really matched this requirement was Twiggy and even there were several ridiculous discussions arround which finally lead to the removal of her picture from the infobox (sic!). I even finally tried to put all what was brought up in this discussion and what I have learned from it into a new wording - but still no change. So you may understand that I am somewhat tired of discussion with certain people. Sad as it is, that WP:NFC#UULP is still ignored and any NFC of living persons is still an easy target for deletion, no matter the circumstances. My personal opinion is that an article about anything that is in substantial parts interessing because of its special look is generally rather pointless without a picture. In the case of Miss World 1969, which is by the way a good a exmaple of such a (now) rather pointless article, it was - if I remember correctly - even just a screenshot from one of the James Bond movies of her acting career. Apparently something that had to be removed at all costs, as quickly as possible right after I brought it up in the discussion. Testales (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

They err on the side of caution. It would seem that quoting "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable", with a carefully worded explanation as to why the image met and followed this instruction, and use of such articles as Shirley Temple as specific examples that followed guideline and policy, should have been the clincher and resolved the issue.

What the noble opposition did not acknowledge, is that use of non-free images is not in violation. While yes, the Wikipedia Foundation's licensing policy states "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition of Free Cultural Works", it also specifically allows that each project community is allowed to develop and adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy in accordance with the applicable laws of the country where that particular project content is predominantly accessed [1]. The EDP developed by en.Wikipedia under the Wikimedia Foundation policy is in accordance with United States law and allows non-free content under certain circumstances and with specifically stated and restrictive licensing requirements. An image of a beauty queen AS a beauty queen is allowable, specially since an image of her as a grandmother would not add to understanding. I think though that what should have been acceptable to the discussion, specially in light of the Shirley Temple article example, would have been a contemporary image in the infobox (if available), and an image of her in her "heyday" in the article body itself to illustrate her notability in a way that a contemporary image could not.

Illuminated with examples of existing proper application of the EDP, it might have been a good question to present to the Foundation itself. As rules must be applied equally and fairly if they are to have any meaning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bascially, as you probably know meanwhile, it started with HW removing (once again) BLP pictures of Japanese models and actresses. Naturally it is pure coincidence that HW's interesst for Japanese models just awoke when he encountered "resistance" from authors that wrote them. But this time I saw that clear and simple rule in the policy that would not allow him to easily remove this material. That's why I reverted this in the most obvious cases and finally got support by other editors. Let me also add that to my understanding the uploader had fullfilled anything which was required as rationale and other formal criteria at the time where it was uploaded as best as he or she knew. But it seems HW has some friends and moreover I read at several times statements like "don't we always remove NFC pictures on living persons?" and also challenges to and XfD which ended with a keep although the person is alive and preferably based on the exeption in question. The material of the japanese models has been deleted meanwhile there was at least one representative FfD for it, just see the arguements for yourself. Bascially "NFC of living people is always replaceable" and "no images required here". So it's that simple, if that is indeed broad consensus WP:NFC#UULP is invalid and has to be removed. If that is not consensus the deletion of this material and a lot other too was not justified. There are quite some interpretable words in the NFC rules like "encyclopedic purpose" - does that also include to have a picture of an actors who was only active for some years long time ago? At least I feel that something important is missing if I read an article about a person without a picture at least if this person's apperance IS publically known like from TV or magazines. Models are just the most obvious case but I think that would also apply for long retired actors and even politicans simply to allow the reader recognition of that person. That is also why absolutely do not understand why the Twiggy image with he look which apparently she was most known for can not be in the info box. It would only be understandable if there was indeed a more recent picture of her too which would then go to the infobox. Well, beeing a rather new user and only active every now and then, I did what I could to get that solved. But in the end there were only many words and nothing changed. I would bet it would have looked different just 3 years ago. I also didn't know that it would be possible to ask the Foundation itself for an authoritative answer, is it really? As of know it finally was a big "victory" for HW's point of view aside maybe from this non-written "appearance must have been discussed in notable secondary sources" option. So as I said currently any NFC content of living people seems to be an easy target for deletion. Testales (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the topic of Japanese models has become quite heated, and tends to polarize any discussion... which is why my own example would be the popular and iconic Shirley Temple, as a topic less inclined to generate heat while discussing proper application of the Exemption Doctrine Policy. Of course, if folks are not aware of the existance of the EDP, they will not understand nor agree that exemptions are not only specifically allowed, but are in accordance with U.S. copyright law for a U.S. foundation. If someone does not know that Red exists, they will only see the world in shades of Blue and Yellow. And not using names, there are editors who, unless you already agree with them, will refuse to involve themselves in discussions of "Red", as "Red" is contrary to their pre-conceived notions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Breanne Benson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Breanne Benson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breanne Benson (2nd nomination) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)