Talk:NNDB and User talk:Longhair: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m assessing as start
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{notaforum}}
{{busy}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WebsiteNotice|class=Start}}
|algo = old(8d)
{{oldafdfull|date=17 April 2006|result='''keep'''}}
|archive = User talk:Longhair/Archive20
}}
{{User:Longhair/Header|Talk|Crystal Clear app messenger.png}}
<!--*********************************** Start content here ***********************************-->
___________________________________


{{User:Longhair/TOCbox}}
==Mass adding to WP.==
This site has been added to the external links sections of more than 150 articles. It doesn't seem to merit inclusion at WP. Thoughts? [[User:Jeandré|— Jeandré,]] 2006-01-01t12:50z


<small>This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by MiszaBot. Any sections older than '''8''' days are automatically archived to '''[[User talk:Longhair/Archive20]]'''.<BR>
::Nobody is mass-adding those links. They were added by probably at least 100 people. Each editor of those articles saw fit to add the link independently, so they are certainly worth keeping. The site in question does not have advertising and is not a link farm, which is quite unlike many of the spam-links polluting external links sections. (I removed two that were part of casino advertising rings the other day.) It would be better to concentrate on removing that sort of pollution rather than something that isn't a problem. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
[[/Archives]] [[/Archive1|1]] [[/Archive2|2]] [[/Archive3|3]] [[/Archive4|4]] [[/Archive5|5]] [[/Archive6|6]] [[/Archive7|7]] [[/Archive8|8]] [[/Archive9|9]] [[/Archive10|10]] [[/Archive11|11]] [[/Archive12|12]] [[/Archive13|13]] [[/Archive14|14]] [[/Archive15|15]] [[/Archive16|16]] [[/Archive17|17]] [[/Archive18|18]] [[/Archive19|19]] [[/Archive20|20]]</small>


== Kate Ritchie ==
I agree with [[User:Jeandré|— Jeandré,]]. I have just come across an editor of some scores of biographical articles who has added links to entries in the NNDB. As far as I could see the editors in the NNDB do not state its sources. In fact they encourage people to send in infomation (without sources being needed) which the site owners apparently then consider using in the database. The possible problem I can see with this database is that we dont know anything about the rigour of the checking process which the data goes through. Indeed for all I know, not having done a thorough check, the database may offer little more than can be found in Wikipedia. Judging by the WP article on [[Alan Turing]] which is what alerted me, everything on him in NNDB can be found already within the WP article.


Hmmm. Blocking AuntyKate.SallyRoxs seems rather heavy-handed. Did you not figure out who she is, or read the top of her talk page? [[User:Pingku|Pingku]] ([[User talk:Pingku|talk]]) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
So what is the value of such an external link to an NNDB entry? If it were a reference to verifable source data which we could use to support the WP article then I would find it useful, but as it is you have to search elsewhere to find reasonable verification for what I found in NNDB. I think links to NNDB in the external links of wikipedia articles could be removed without loss to WP.
-- [[User:Op. Deo|Op. Deo]] 09:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


I read the userpage. Who they are doesn't give the editor any right introduce trivial nonsense to the article on Ritchie. The user was given fair warning via multiple messages to their userpage, which ''they also chose to ignore''. They've only been blocked for 24 hours, not indefinitely, so they've got an opportunity to realise why they were blocked and to discuss rather than edit war in future. We're not here to babysit. -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 09:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::Requiring that your sources state their sources is indeed a novel one. Do you intend to apply this universally to all sources that Wikipedia uses? If you do that, you will certainly have almost no usable sources. This is a terrible idea.


:You're perfectly right of course. It does seem a shame, though, with the apparent good faith behind it. Still, she was behaving like a brat. :) [[User:Pingku|Pingku]] ([[User talk:Pingku|talk]]) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Novel? Hardly. See [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]. While not everything needs to cite sources (it could itself be a primary source), NNDB is certainly not acceptable as a Wikipedia source. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


== Hannah Lambourne ==
::All properties you describe for NNDB is also true for IMDB. Do you recommend removal of those as well? That is just one of the more prominent of many sources, I could include the Encyclopedia Britannica as well. Most reasonable people would disagree with you. Now for an individual case, it would be fair to consider removal of any source, be it NNDB, IMDB, or whatnot. But this must be done on a case-by-case basis ''by people who are involved with the articles in question'' -- because they are the ones that added the links in the first place. Any such decisions ought not be done by a person with an agenda against a particular source. There is a tremendous amount of information in NNDB that is not present in Wikipedia. Remove the Turing entry if appropriate, but it would not be appropriate to go haphazardly undoing other people's work.


You just managed to beat me to it. The page was lifted from [[Fiona Wood]], although you'd probably spotted that too. :) - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 00:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::There is also value in interconnecting the various important data stores on the net, even if they are NOT used as sources. See [[Semantic Web]]. If I could snap my fingers and have every Encyclopedia Britannica article cross-connected with Wikipedia, and every IMDB entry, and every NNDB entry, every Namebase entry, every Allmusic entry, I don't think I would hesitate to do so.


== User: Bobby the Musical Prophet ==
::[[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Longhair. i am with the CVN on Wikipedia, and this user just popped up on my radar. He seems to have stripped your indef block warning from his talk and liberated his own page...dunno if he can be blocked from editing his talk page as well, but I thought I'd let you know anyhow! Take care, and thanks for jumping on him so swiftly. :) [[User:Iceflow|Thor Malmjursson]] ([[User talk:Iceflow|talk]]) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There should be [[transparency (media)|transparency]] in who a biographical compilation is being created. NNDB lacks this. NNDB is not being updated in most cases that I have examined. The correlation of additions to NNDB from IMDB can't be ignored even if you want to argue more about it. Personally, if there's a NNDB entry that's reasonably accurate because it's been added to NNDB recently, then I'd leave it alone, if it's incorrect, then remove it. It would be be bizarre to find that robots are taking entries and entry content from the Wikipedia and then later returning to the Wikipedia to link from here to their ''aggregated'' content. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 18:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


== BrianBeahr ==
::As discussed earlier, there are no such robots, and such "mass linking" is not happening, so it's a moot point. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Can you please help me out here. A while back I implemented an infobox to put in VFL season articles, outlining the major team and individual award winners etc. I put them into the articles 1897 to 1950 but no further. BrianBeahr, likes he's done with several other pages (duplication), has decided to make another infobox template. I have told him that a perfectly good version already exists but got no response. He has now replaced the infoboxes in the articles 1897 to 1950. He's been deleting his talk page messages but he recently, in a rare response, said that his infobox is more detailed. By comparing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1931_VFL_season&oldid=242463674 my version] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1931_VFL_season&oldid=244677709 his] you can see that it clearly isn't the case. I suggested that any changes he want to make to the infobox, such as adding teams next to the player's name, can be done to the original infobox and a new one isn't required. He didn't respond and instead deleted my comment.
A scientist article, [[George Gabriel Stokes]], which I checked in NNDB was a straight copy and paste from 1911 Britannica, so that is OK. Curiously the one bit that was wrong was added by the editor classifying him as English, when the article clearly indicates an Irish birth and home. I also happen to know he had a strong Irish accent. This does not say much for the editorial process! As well as lack of transparency (good point) the site may be unreliable. -- [[User:Op. Deo|Op. Deo]] 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


If you don't have the time to deal with this issue I understand, but could you please direct me to somewhere else I can raise this? Cheers. [[User:Crickettragic|Crickettragic]] ([[User talk:Crickettragic|talk]]) 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::Stoke's accomplishments occurred entirely in England, so calling his nationality English is entirely appropriate. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


:Last night I wrote [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrianBeahr&diff=244674673&oldid=244673375 a message] on his talk page outlining the problems with his version of the St Kilda Football Club article (which he has since deleted). Each time I or another editor tries to tidy up the page he just keeps reverting back to his version of the article. I understand that he is acting in good faith but he is showing no signs that he is filling to discuss any of his edits so the options are limited. It may not qualify as vandalism but it is still disruptive to wikipedia. As someone on [[Talk:St Kilda Football Club]] put rather well, the article looks like a 'dog's breakfast'. [[User:Crickettragic|Crickettragic]] ([[User talk:Crickettragic|talk]]) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::That will upset the Irish :) . What I regard as the best website on him [http://www.cmde.dcu.ie/Stokes/GGStokes.html], written by an academic who lectures on him, claims him as an Irish mathematical physicist! Also he married an Irish girl and he visited Ireland during the holidays each summer. Until he died, he remained an Irishman working in England. Incidentally checking another article on [[John Harington]], which in NNDB is again a copy and paste from Britannica, it has the same image of an incorrect John Harington, that WP carries, and which I have commented on the WP caption. Anyway, I had better not waste more time on NNDB when there is WP work to do. -- [[User:Op. Deo|Op. Deo]] 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


::Thanks. I appreciate that you've taken the time to investigate this. [[User:Crickettragic|Crickettragic]] ([[User talk:Crickettragic|talk]]) 01:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree, it's a judgement call. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 19:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


:::I'm working on it as we speak. I am replacing the infobox with the original. I've also edited the original infobox as you suggested, to take into account any positive changes that the one proposed for deletion had. [[User:Crickettragic|Crickettragic]] ([[User talk:Crickettragic|talk]]) 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
==How NNDB defines ''notable''==


::::On second thought I've withdrawn my nomination. I'll wait until it is no longer in use. [[User:Crickettragic|Crickettragic]] ([[User talk:Crickettragic|talk]]) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The 98 out of 100 entries fact is sourced from ''NNDB itself''. If it is 97 out of 100, or 99 out of 100 the article can be corrected. If NNDB's inclusion policies change to no longer reflect an entertainment industry bias, then the article can be changed to reflect that it once had this bias and no longer does.


:::::Cheers. I notice he tried to do you for 3RR lol. Speaking of which, are you able to revert the St Kilda Football Club article back again? It's currently at BrianBeahr's version and I've already undid his revision twice in the last 24 hours. [[User:Crickettragic|Crickettragic]] ([[User talk:Crickettragic|talk]]) 08:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The information added later about the Wikipedia is irrelevant to the NNDB article , but a "See Also" entry could be added to point to an article that discusses biographical inclusion bias, if any, in the Wikipedia. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 18:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


::::::As expected, it looks like our friend doesn't want to play ball. With his ban ended he goes straight back to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Kilda_Football_Club&oldid=244967681 reverting the St Kilda article] back to his version. [[User:Jevansen|Jevansen (formerly Crickettragic)]] ([[User talk:Jevansen|talk]]) 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:Your paragraph ''is'' original research, and furthermore contains fallacious reasoning. I shall dissect:


== Pokemon redirect ==
::NNDB's definition of ''notable'' is different from more common definitions of the word.


I did not close the AfD, however, unless there is some reason not to enforce the ended AfD, then I would certainly push the matter. If you're telling me that there is a lack of consensus, then there are appropriate avenues to approach this, as opposed to giving me a hard time. --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] ([[User talk:Mhking|talk]]) 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::No example is provided of any "non-notable" name.


:So help me understand; if there is only one or two voices in an AfD, then it is not considered valid? How many voices makes it valid? Does that mean that if there are only one or two voices raised in opposition then the article should not be removed or redirected? If that is the case, then why do articles with only one or two voices get removed regularly? What makes this situation different? --[[User:Mhking|Mhking]] ([[User talk:Mhking|talk]]) 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::In the 100 "recently added entries" in one period, 98 of the entries also had biographies in [[IMDB]], the Internet Movie Database, suggesting a bias in coverage overlapping IMDB.


== AfD nomination of Mother's Cookies ==
:::Fallacy: Hasty generalization (based on a poorly chosen random sample). Additional fallacy, faulty cause, even if true, this does nothing to prove your point that names are somehow not notable. Other "random samples" [[http://www.nndb.com/blog/archives/2005/7/31/] suggest a bias toward physicists, baseball players, or whatever stream of names happens to have been in that wave of additions.


[[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left]]An article that you have been involved in editing, [[Mother's Cookies]], has been listed for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother's Cookies]]. Thank you. <small>Do you want to [[Template:Bots#Message notification opt out|opt out]] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:Adw --> [[User:Oscarthecat|Oscarthecat]] ([[User talk:Oscarthecat|talk]]) 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
::It includes as a ''notable name'', the name of an actor with a single screen credit.


== No problem ==
:::Irrelevant -- this is not evidence that any name is not notable. Furthermore it is anecdotal as that name is not given. Is that name present in Wikipedia? It almost certainly is. If so, did you call for its removal from Wikipedia as being non-notable? That is also a criterion for inclusion in this reference.


Seems so. I'll rather be fixing coords or improving articles then dealing with time wasting vandals. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Example: Is the author of [[Gone With the Wind]] not notable because she is a novelist with a single book credit?


== Bah ==
:: On the other hand, as of [[January 1]], 2006, [[Whittaker Chambers]], one of the most notable political figures of the late [[1940's]] and early [[1950's]], and a recipient of the [[Presidential Medal of Freedom]], did not have an entry in NNDB.


If i see another bloody ''over there'' centric thing about ranches (our wa cataloguers in the state idiot box library use 'railroading') the station art smells of some horrible generalisations, heheh - but give me indonesian subs to ''really'' rise the ire :) - trust all is well over your way - [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 12:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Fallacy: Red Herring. Absence of a name does not prove the other names are not notable. For instance Wikipedia lacks many notable names -- including [[Bill France, Jr.]], but there are many other examples of highly important and well-known people absent from this reference. That does not mean that the names that are present are damned to the epithet "non-notable" just because Wikipedia happens to be a work-in-progress.


:I guess you're talking about [[Station (Australian agriculture)]] or have I been looking at this [[:Image:Rachael Rees.jpg|image]] for too long?? [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 12:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
:[[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


:Heh I was talking up the first - stump me grinders i cannot see the connection with the second :( [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 12:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not original research to show in the Wikipedia a significant, relevant fact about NNDB which NNDB itself shows on this [http://www.nndb.com/blog/ page]. NNDB links to the ''films'' of actors, but not to the research areas or discoveries of those physicists entered five months ago.


::Well I just uploaded and added info to that image when I seen your comment on Longhair's talkpage and noticed that you said "ranches" and "station" and put two and two together. Isn't often that I can do that. ;) :P [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|talk]]) 12:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
'''What would satisfy you''', Quatloo, to demonstrate that there is a selection bias in NNDB or Wikipedia or any other DB? Or do you believe that such assertions can't be shown?


== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta Omicron Iota|Beta Omicron Iota]] ==
On hand an example is ''required'', but if an example is offered it becomes ''original research''
A general statement is subject to the charge of ''generalization''. A specific example becomes an ''annecdote''. It seems to me you've rigged the game here. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for taking care of that AfD. I have a question. Something I read, when researching that article, made me believe that it had already been speedy deleted earlier. Isn't there a way to block a title to prevent the article from being recreated again? [[User:Unschool|Unschool]] ([[User talk:Unschool|talk]]) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::There are problems both with using an example and with the particular choice of example that you used. You offered as an "example" an unnamed individual (therefore anecdotal) stating as evidence of lacking-noteworthiness the fact that the individual had a credit listed for only one movie. That is not sufficient to establish your predicate -- an individual actor can have a credit for a single movie and still be noteworthy. Just like an author such as [[Margaret Mitchell]] can have a credit for one novel and still be noteworthy. And furthermore the individual may be noteworthy for other reasons than those described in the profile. A personal lack of familiarity with the individual in question is no indication at all of noteworthiness or lack thereof.


== Emmalina ==
::On the other hand, you cannot use a single example to demonstrate by its absence that the rest of the names in the database are not notable. That would be a red herring and is a common tactic of those engaging in fallacious argument.


Would you be prepared to work cooperatively to improve the Emmalina article or put the verifiable information somewhere? I think there is notability in being a demonstration of the early concerns of Youtube security (she was also a well-viewed meme in the early days of Youtube, even if she isn't now). There is some notability there, even if it doesn't deserve a separate article, it should go somewhere. Any sugestions? (Reply here). [[User:JRG|JRG]] ([[User talk:JRG|talk]]) 07:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::To demonstrate bias, it would be necessary to show that society's choice of who is notable -- and ultimately, it is society taken as a whole who is the ''only'' arbiter of unbiased "noteworthiness" -- differs substantially from NNDB's. And judging by the abundance of poets [http://www.nndb.com/lists/198/000068991/], historians [http://www.nndb.com/lists/197/000068990/], historical figures, etc. which are in NNDB and off the radar of much of society, that the truth may actually be the ''opposite'' of your contention: that NNDB actually may have a bias ''against'' figures from the entertainment industry.


:I think she deserves a line or two within the YouTube article, if that. Although she of her own free will decided to launch her life into her own brand of internet stardom, most of her viewers have likely moved onto the next big thing. We shouldn't prolong her public persona if she no longer wants it. Her 15 minutes are over. -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::Society has a great interest in entertainments, far more than that field probably deserves. But that is not the issue here. What the issue would be is any statistical variation between society's determinations and NNDB's. I do not know what the bias in NNDB is and the deleted assertation was flawed by its extensive (and in fact, exclusive) use of fallacious argument and also by lack of attributions, and may indeed be (and the more I think about it, most probably is) incorrect.


:Thanks a lot - not. Completely uncooperative. I don't know why I bother sometimes. [[User:JRG|JRG]] ([[User talk:JRG|talk]]) 07:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::[[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 02:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


::You got an answer. No need to get all huffy because it wasn't the answer you wanted. -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
:::OK. If I understand your argument correctly, then a 0.999 or 0.9999 correlation of the names added to IMDB and NNDB is ''merely'' that while IMDB explicitly deals with the entertainment world, NNDB deals with the entertainment-obsessed society at large who confers ''notability'' on the one screen credit actor. If IMDB ever tracks who goes to the auditions, perhaps that will be of interest to society and well and be a source of notable names in NNDB. [[User:Patsw|patsw]] 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


:No - I didn't get an answer. I got an uncooperative person who has no intention of working with users who are trying in good faith to improve articles. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about improving the encyclopedia, but time and time again I see deletion debates dominated by people who couldn't be bothered doing that, are too motivated by their own self-opinion on how not notable an article is and would never help another user find the best way to proceed with an article. I thought you might be an exception to that. Apparently not. [[User:JRG|JRG]] ([[User talk:JRG|talk]]) 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I already discussed this, but I will say it again: You are taking a sample that is ''not'' representative of the data as a whole and then trying to apply its properties to the whole. This is a fallacy known as a [[hasty generalization]]. The only thing which that demonstrates is that names are apparently added in batches by occupation (and perhaps by other criteria). By taking an earlier batch, one can assume that all of NNDB consists of physicists -- in fact I showed you two earlier batches, one consisting largely of physicists and another consisting largely of playwrights. You can see that by selectively choosing which batches to examine, you can often manipulate the data to draw whatever conclusions you desire. Thus any conclusion based on this type of data analysis is suspect, and often such conclusions are (deliberately) false.


::I'm not going to work on the article, or try to squeeze the article in anywhere, because IMHO, there should be no article. She's a ''young girl'' who has tried to reduce any harm to herself, and we should be doing everything, as ''reasonable people'', by helping her do that. She want's her article gone, and I tend to see that as a positive effect. You came here looking for an answer, and you got one. I'm sorry, I disagree with your goals here. Like I said above, her time has been and gone. Let her be. -- [[User:Longhair|Longhair]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Longhair|talk]]</sup> 08:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Discussion of the predilections that are society's interests, that isn't a subject for this article but some other article. But it would perhaps be very interesting.


::::[[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


==Inaccuracies==
== Metaltome.com ==
I recently created a site for metaltome.com and was curious why you deleted instantly saying that i didn't state the importance of the site. I did i said it is a social networking site directed towards metal heads and i a place where we can gather from around the world to discuss metal and enjoy metal. I'm just kinda baffled on how to explain it differently. do i need to define social networking or something? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Nocturus41|Nocturus41]] ([[User talk:Nocturus41|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nocturus41|contribs]]) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Get it right you prat ==
<s>Should some of NNDb's factual inaccuracies be included? Being someone who is nitpicky about having correct dates of birth, I noticed that NNDB has incorrect listings for [http://www.nndb.com/people/033/000022964/ Jennifer Lopez], [http://www.nndb.com/people/418/000024346/ Joseph Stalin], [http://www.nndb.com/people/242/000025167/ Whoopi Goldberg], and [http://www.nndb.com/people/291/000044159/ Paulette Goddard] (to only name a few). Not to mention they rarely (if ever) update their pages when corrections are submitted, even when extensive documentation including voting and residence records are found.</s>--[[User:Fallout boy|Fallout boy]] 22:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


I have made no edits to such an article, moron. [[Special:Contributions/89.241.105.87|89.241.105.87]] ([[User talk:89.241.105.87|talk]]) 17:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
::Perhaps some of your "facts" are wrong. I did a check, and Joseph Stalin's NNDB birthdate matches that given in Encyclopedia Britannica. I believe there is confusion as to Old Style and New Style, and the date given there is New Style. Which is fine. And there is a debate as to Whoopi Goldberg's actual birthdate. Hollywood actors and actresses lie about their ages, so choosing one of them is more art than fact, and in some cases even records are forged for this purpose. But even more so, this kind of debate amounts to original research, [[WP:NOR]]. [[User:Poledancer|Poledancer]] 23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I know when it comes to things like disputed dates of birth, there are no "facts", just which one is more likely. I know exactly how NS and OS dates work, and they vary by the day of the year (ie. December 9 or December 21). The dispute with Stalin is over the year (1878 or 1879). The date you saw in Britannica was what he claimed, everything else says he is a year older. I also never use one site as a source (particularly Britannica) since all can be fallible, so I always coss check with records, school graduation years, etc. Even though Whoopi Goldberg says she was born in 1955, I never believe claims solely by face value since 99.9% of the time ages are lowered, so I checked her birth certificate from ancestry.com and voting records from ussearch and both say 1955. As for the paranoia that all of it could be forged, it is a slight possibility, but as I stated before there are no "facts". And this debate does not amount to original research since dates are verifiable and all this information has been previously published. It also says right on [[WP:NOR]]: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged ... This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."--[[User:Fallout boy|Fallout boy]] 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::This controversy was pointed out to me. I can shed some light on this. Submissions go into a hopper where an administrator may look them over and apply any corrections or additions. MANY birthdate changes come in. Most of them are wrong. The general public seems to think that if a birthdate is published as X somewhere, it must be right, and NNDB is wrong. Before a birthdate is *changed* because of a user submission, it must be sourced to an acceptable place, but this takes time, and there are many submissions. Wikipedia citations as source must be looked at skeptically -- there have been cases of people editing Wikipedia with the intent to get an NNDB record changed. We also have added a footnoting mechanism by which disputed dates may be discussed. On the whole the birthdates are as accurate or perhaps more accurate than Wikipedia dates, and definitely more accurate than Britannica dates. [[User:Nndb|Nndb]] 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not mad at NNDB, just nitpicky as I mentioned before. I have to give them kudos that they changed 50 Cent's birthdate after I submitted an update for how they could find it on his inmate records, whereas most other sources ([http://www.allmusic.com *cough*]) have never gotten around to it.--[[User:Fallout boy|Fallout boy]] 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that alot of NNBD (at least from what I've seen) are inaccurate. They are also lacking sources, which I think is important. I mean COME ON!! If they don't know whether the celebrity is gay or not, do they just assume?? *shrugs* <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.107.104.167|58.107.104.167]] ([[User talk:58.107.104.167|talk]]) 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Objectivity ==

For what it's worth, the NNDB site is far from objective. I don't know if its developers claim or intend it to be. For one of many examples, check the entry on Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

:Wikipedia claims objectivity but is far from objective. Dr. Laura, on the other hand, is a sleazy opportunist and a proven liar. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mother Teresa, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and others have slanted entries as well. Links to Rotten Library pages, often vicious themselves, are provided for many.
:The NNDB is itself a POV (if not partisan) rant. Why is its objectivity not a primary topic within the article? Someone write into the article how academically senseless and non-transparent it is! Dr. Laura really is the perfect example--the article cites nothing but adjectives and unprovables. --[[User:Mrcolj|Mrcolj]] 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::I've wasted the last hour playing on the NNDB. It is a fun site. cf. however, here: "[Tom] Cruise's fans and detractors have long wondered what engorges his member. Cruise is rumored to be as in-the-closet as a winter jacket in July" Wow, I guess those who didn't finish high school would see that as an academically sound sentence. --[[User:Mrcolj|Mrcolj]] 21:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Michael Jackson's page—"Executive summary (sic): Lover of children everywhere"[http://www.nndb.com/people/599/000022533/] Wow. [[User:Quadzilla99|Quadzilla99]] 06:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

== good quality ==

'''keep''' I have looked at a dozen history articles and they are of good quality--often as good or better than Wiki. The criteria for deletion is not whether a source contains some mistakes. If so we wouldn't have Wiki. [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:seriously? --another R. Jensen [[User:Mrcolj|Mrcolj]] 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

== Source ==

Do we really have to have the "source" tag here? If so, then we need one for "1911 EB" as well. This is self-sourced, as is IMDb, and as Wikipedia is ''not'' supposed to be. This seems to me to be a placating of a disappointed loser in the deletion debate. NNDB is a most imperfect source, as are ''all'' sources. As we have recently seen incessantly, the fact that something is published anywhere, including ''The New York Times'', doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, but just that it has been published in ''The New York Times'', which is still superior to citing its publication in the ''National Enquirer'', ''Weekly World News'', ''The Sun'', or ''The New York Post''. [[User:Rlquall|Rlquall]] 12:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
:This website is obviously not reliable and shouldn't be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. However, there definitely needs to be an article on the NNDB in Wikipedia - regardless of how reliable it may or may not be. NNDB, by the way, has based several of its newer articles directly on the content of Wikipedia articles. Which is, of course, part of the reason why they should never be used as a source here [[User:Jack O'Lantern|Mad Jack]] 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

::Care to cite examples? NNDB has never plagiarized Wikipedia, but the reverse is not true. [[User:Poledancer|Poledancer]] 05:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, I wouldn't say "plagiarized" - they have a different format so they can't physically plagirize us. What I meant was they based info entirely on the Wikipedia entry. At some point, someone submitted the full names of several actors' parents to Wikipedia - off their birth records - so this info was available basically exclusively on Wikipedia. And then NNDB copied these names exactly [http://www.nndb.com/people/548/000109221/] [http://www.nndb.com/people/365/000110035/] when they created the entries - and later the names were copied elsewhere as well. Another one, an actress named [[Mara Wilson]] - our entry used to say her mother was "Jewish American" - and we were the only website to use that exact wording (i.e. "Jewish American" as opposed to just "Jewish"), and then the NNDB created a profile for her exactly matching that wording [http://www.nndb.com/people/308/000108981/] - her mother's maiden name was also copied there - and it was also something that seemed to be posted exclusively on Wikipedia beforehand (the same wording is no longer on her Wikipedia entry) But this has nothing to do with why the NNDB is not reliable. The NNDB is not reliable because it is a second-hand source that does not, alas, for the most part, cite its sources. How do we know were they got their info from? If we're lucky, it was from a good source. If not, not. When we see something on the NNDB, if we want to include it, we need to find the actual first-hand source where it came from. Otherwise we're talking 50-50 in terms of it being reliable. [[User:Jack O'Lantern|Mad Jack]] 05:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

:: I won't address the Sean Faris example, since IMDB also has same information. For Mara Wilson -- the NNDB entry contains a lot of information that was not present in the Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mara_Wilson&diff=28868242&oldid=28247456] at the time the NNDB entry was created in 2005. Almost all of that information was added to Wikipedia later. You simply cannot say it was based on the Wikipedia entry -- "exclusively" as you claim. Incidentally NNDB does keep reference notes internally, and on average there are more sources cited than with Wikipedia articles. At some point some of this information will be systematically exposed, but this is still under development. [[User:Poledancer|Poledancer]] 06:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:::The Sean Faris information was not on the IMDB until after it was on Wikipedia. The NNDB either got it from IMDB or Wikipedia - and neither is a reliable source (unless we cite our sources). Internal reference notes don't help people who need to verify if the information is correct or not. What NNDB needs to do in order to be reliable is to actually cite the sources so people can see - so we know what is cited and what isn't - because, obviously, not everything is cited. Without these sources, as I said, the NNDB is just a second-hand source like the IMDB and Wikipedia. And when second-hand sources start citing each other, they become third-hand sources. By the way, do you want more nuggets? [[Topher Grace]]'s entry lists some women he has supposedly dated [http://www.nndb.com/people/663/000026585/] - but Grace is notoriously private and does not talk about his private life - so what you're publishing is gossip elevated to fact. What I'd do on Wikipedia is say "Source B alleged that Grace dated person X" and cite the source. Or this one, for [[Richard Gere]], which had me laughing for a long time [http://www.nndb.com/people/816/000022750/] - says "Gere was born Jewish and raised Methodist". I guess the online rumors that Gere was Jewish were too much for the NNDB - and they caved in and combined all the second-rate stories on his background into one (they also have "Irish ancestry" there at the bottom). Well, Gere was not born Jewish - he was born, of Anglo-Irish descent (which is not the same as Irish) and indeed raised Methodist. I'm not saying Wikipedia doesn't have similar errors - but A. at least with the citations we have you can tell what is 100% reliable and what isn't and B. we don't cite ourselves. Citing NNDB would be like citing ourselves - i.e. quite potentially error-ridden [[User:Jack O'Lantern|Mad Jack]] 06:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

::::I was not disputing that a fact might be occasionally be obtained from Wikipedia by NNDB, just as the reverse is true. Particularly for D-level celebrities such as the example of Mara Wilson. The claim made by "Mad Jack" above was that the article was "entirely based" on the Wikipedia entry, which is a demonstrably false statement. We are largely in agreement about citing sources. I will make two further observations, first, the average number of sources cited in a Wikipedia article is less than one, and probably alarmingly close to zero; and second, a sizable percentage of sources cited by Wikipedia articles do not fit the standards one would expect of a source. Many of them cite oddball things like Geocities pages, or agreggates of information that do not themselves contain citations (such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Almanacs, etc). [[User:Poledancer|Poledancer]] 07:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::Oh yeah, that certainly may well be true (although not for the pages I edit, natch :) ), but my whole point throughout this has been that NNDB can't be used as a source when citing facts on Wikipedia - for basically the same reason that (uncited) Wikipedia can't be used as a source. [[User:Jack O'Lantern|Mad Jack]] 07:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


== Executive summaries on NNDB ==

In the article, I added a description of the NNDB Executive Summaries (based on another user's earlier edit) in an attempt to describe the NNDB field in a neutral way. Here is the content I added:

:NNDB's executive summaries of people occasionally contain pointed descriptions. For example, NNDB describes [[Kent Hovind]] as a "huckster"[http://www.nndb.com/people/333/000085078/] and [[Ann Coulter]] as a "Walking rightwing rant."[http://www.nndb.com/people/474/000022408/]

Another editor removed this with the comment "POV." I am unsure what the POV violation is here. Is it the word "pointed"? If so, is there a more acceptable term to describe the executive summary field? Please discuss here. --[[User:Zippy|Zippy]] 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

: I would like to propose the following wording: "NNDB's ''executive summaries'' are brief decriptions of each entry in the database. NNDB executive summaries describe [[Kent Hovind]] as a "huckster"[http://www.nndb.com/people/333/000085078/] and [[Ann Coulter]] as a "walking rightwing rant."[http://www.nndb.com/people/474/000022408/]". Are there any objections to this description of the executive summary field in NNDB? --[[User:Zippy|Zippy]] 19:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::It would seem you are trying to give a distorted view by choosing atypical entries. One would hesitate to call that "neutral." [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:::My apologies if these examples are atypical. I picked them up from an earlier edit to this article, which I saw had been reverted, and I assumed the revert was based on the descriptions of these examples, rather than the examples themselves. My intent with this suggested addition is for the examples listed to show the range of possibilities for the executive summaries. Are there typical examples we could use to balance this list out, together with wording to describe how the examples above are atypical? --[[User:Zippy|Zippy]] 21:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, if you were to type a common name in, say John or Bob or Mark or whatever, you would probably get a list of more typical examples. But activity such as this really borders on original research. I know that in earlier days of NNDB there were more of these types of descriptions, and seem to have been eradicated over time. The same phenomenon occurs in Wikipedia, where you will have an ununsual thing here and there, and those get smoothed out as time passes. Roddy Piper's entry has "Here to kick ass, chew bubble gum." [http://www.nndb.com/people/612/000023543/]. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 23:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

::::: I would like to describe the executive summaries field in NNDB in a way that we can reach consensus. My concern is that if we ignore NNDB entries that are not entirely smoothed out, then we will be open to criticism that we have papered over some aspects of the NNDB, and in doing so will have taken a non-neutral point of view. I think it would be neutral of us to list several examples of executive summaries, with some being purely factual and at least one being somewhat opinionated, or at least colorful, as a way of truely representing the dynamic range of executive summaries in NNDB. I am imagining a list like "Sam Cooke, Soul and R&B Singer; Doug Henning, Extremely flamboyant magician; Janet Maslin, New York Times film critic; Franklin Pierce, 14th President of the U.S." Do you think this would fairly represent this aspect of NNDB? If not, could you suggest some examples that you think would represent it fairly? --[[User:Zippy|Zippy]] 07:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:When I first put the info, I stated that the summaries were subjective. There is no POV issue about that term, as "rant" and "huckster" are subjective terms. [[User:Tim Long|Tim Long]] 04:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

::Your choice of using executive summaries that which are exceptions rather than the rule is an attempt to cherry-pick the available data to prove a "point" which may or may not be true. That in itself is bad research technique and highly POV. [[User:Quatloo|Quatloo]] 06:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:No, actually. POV can also be found in the text on the site. And even if that wasn't the case, the site's info is subjective. I'm not trying to prove a point.

''"which may or may not be true."'' Can you not understand what words mean? How could the "point" not be true. Using pejoratives to refer to people does not constitute objectivity. [[User:Tim Long|Tim Long]] 05:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

==NPOV==
If this isn't NPOV, then this article is entirely written by people who really consider the NNDB a legitimate newssource. Of course this article is largely written by NNDB employees, for what that's worth... I tried to put in, as politely as I could, the line "Whereas these statistics are based solely on submitted information from anonymous readers, the information is largely unsourced and is often marketed toward those seeking entertaining gossip," and it was deleted with no discussion. The NNDB is a gossip site at best, with little to no sources or efforts thereto, and gaining spikes of popularity earlier this year entirely through writing sassy, shocking, sensationalist articles with no sources. That's not my opinion, that's just what they did. No one there is trying to be objective, so having an article that doesn't mention their most universally accepted attribute--their slant--is just a lame attempt at getting more backlinks from the wikipedia. --[[User:Mrcolj|Mrcolj]] 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:Regardless what your intent was, you entered a false statement, and that is why I backed it out. You wrote that NNDB "statistics are based solely on submitted information." This is totally false. It is POSSIBLE for people to submit information to NNDB via a web form, that is correct. But that information is not the main or even a major source of NNDB data -- perhaps one tenth of one percent -- probably much, much less than that -- comes from there. NNDB maintains a large library of printed reference works from many fields with which to verify facts. The user submissions are mainly a way to detect errors that may have crept in, or suggest possible areas to expand (such as adding a new individual to the database). But even then a user suggestion is almost never applied without being checked by some other source, and even then it may be applied in a way the submitter did not anticipate. Also your claim that NNDB data is focused on gossip is also false. That information is there if you look for it (if you look up a "gossip" person, yes, that person will likely be there, but you found it because you looked for it.) Such individuals are a small percentage of the 20,000 profiles that exist in NNDB. [[User:Poledancer|Poledancer]] 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

== NNDB is shabby ==

and should not be used as a definitive news source in Wikipedia bio pages. NNDB profiles are consistently plagued by one-off judgments about the lives and works of the "notable people" it features, and until the writing quality improves several times over it should not be linked to from Wikipedia. [[User:JDG|JDG]] 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, these links absolutely should not be used, as they do not meet the standard criteria under [[Wikipedia:External links]] (specifically on being an encyclopedic and valuable source, as well as avoiding linkspam/self-promotion, etc.). We can;t just institutionalize a massive googlebomb on this project anytime some idjit wants free publicity for a half-assed site. It's bad enough that Find a Grave is on so many pages, this site is just a Wikipedia Wannabe of no value. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 16:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find the writing quality on NNDB far better than most of the articles on Wikipedia. I agree that it hasn't established itself as credible site to be used as a source (yet), but I fail to see the shabbiness that you speak of. [[User:Lcduke|Lcduke]]

Jimbo also slams NNDB, but only when used in a &lt;ref&gt;. There have been two attempts to delete [[Template:nndb name]], but it was kept. So we are straddled for now. -- [[User:70.231.154.13|70.231.154.13]] 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

== This site is nothing but god-awful spam ==

Seems to be an orchestrated effort by some loser to try to turn his or her site into a majpr net presense by spamming the hell out of it to this encyclopedia. It's upper crap, nonencyclopedic, and we don't need link to it when so much of them are jus pointless when there are already IMDB, etc. links. [[User:216.165.158.7|216.165.158.7]] 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The site is full of POV statements and the "ethnicity" category leaves much to be desired. Instead of Irish, English, Spanish, Lebanese, etc., it just says "White". The same for other races. Very shoddy.
:The site shouldn't be treated as a serious resource- [http://www.nndb.com/people//041/000022972/ NNDB Keanu Reeves article]- "''Executive summary: Dude''". [[User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel|Gustav von Humpelschmumpel]] 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

==Yoga?==

Why does it have it as a risk factor? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/207.118.118.88|207.118.118.88]] ([[User talk:207.118.118.88|talk]]) 11:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I assume that, like [[homophobia]], it isn't meant to be taken seriously. [[Toupée]] is on there too. --[[User:Mrdie|Mrdie]] ([[User talk:Mrdie|talk]]) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


==Is NNDB run by a child?==

NNDB has some strange issues with designating ethnicities for certain people. It notes Hispanic as a race, when it is not. I know this because when a person is of mixed Hispanic and non-hispanic white, they're listed as "multi-racial". Two examples of this are Freddie Prinze Jr and Christina Aguilera. But then when Cameron Diaz is listed, who is likewise half Hispanic, half non-hispanic white, she is listed as just being Hispanic. Another thing that is really stupid is that the site lists people from the middle east as being "Middle Eastern". What the heck is that? There is no race or ethnicity that says one is Middle Eastern. I mean this just reads like common man talk (Hispanic a race, this guys is Middle Eastern), not a well researched database. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.232.29.249|70.232.29.249]] ([[User talk:70.232.29.249|talk]]) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:You think that's strange: the individuals in charge think all heart-related deaths are by "heart failure". That's so mind-numbingly wrong and stupid that it's not much worse than calling every death from asthma "lung cancer". --[[User:NellieBly|NellieBly]] ([[User talk:NellieBly|talk]]) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:05, 13 October 2008

Crystal Clear app messenger.png
Talk

___________________________________


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 8 days are automatically archived to User talk:Longhair/Archive20.
/Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Kate Ritchie

Hmmm. Blocking AuntyKate.SallyRoxs seems rather heavy-handed. Did you not figure out who she is, or read the top of her talk page? Pingku (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the userpage. Who they are doesn't give the editor any right introduce trivial nonsense to the article on Ritchie. The user was given fair warning via multiple messages to their userpage, which they also chose to ignore. They've only been blocked for 24 hours, not indefinitely, so they've got an opportunity to realise why they were blocked and to discuss rather than edit war in future. We're not here to babysit. -- Longhair\talk 09:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly right of course. It does seem a shame, though, with the apparent good faith behind it. Still, she was behaving like a brat. :) Pingku (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Lambourne

You just managed to beat me to it. The page was lifted from Fiona Wood, although you'd probably spotted that too. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Bobby the Musical Prophet

Hi Longhair. i am with the CVN on Wikipedia, and this user just popped up on my radar. He seems to have stripped your indef block warning from his talk and liberated his own page...dunno if he can be blocked from editing his talk page as well, but I thought I'd let you know anyhow! Take care, and thanks for jumping on him so swiftly. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BrianBeahr

Can you please help me out here. A while back I implemented an infobox to put in VFL season articles, outlining the major team and individual award winners etc. I put them into the articles 1897 to 1950 but no further. BrianBeahr, likes he's done with several other pages (duplication), has decided to make another infobox template. I have told him that a perfectly good version already exists but got no response. He has now replaced the infoboxes in the articles 1897 to 1950. He's been deleting his talk page messages but he recently, in a rare response, said that his infobox is more detailed. By comparing my version to his you can see that it clearly isn't the case. I suggested that any changes he want to make to the infobox, such as adding teams next to the player's name, can be done to the original infobox and a new one isn't required. He didn't respond and instead deleted my comment.

If you don't have the time to deal with this issue I understand, but could you please direct me to somewhere else I can raise this? Cheers. Crickettragic (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I wrote a message on his talk page outlining the problems with his version of the St Kilda Football Club article (which he has since deleted). Each time I or another editor tries to tidy up the page he just keeps reverting back to his version of the article. I understand that he is acting in good faith but he is showing no signs that he is filling to discuss any of his edits so the options are limited. It may not qualify as vandalism but it is still disruptive to wikipedia. As someone on Talk:St Kilda Football Club put rather well, the article looks like a 'dog's breakfast'. Crickettragic (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate that you've taken the time to investigate this. Crickettragic (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it as we speak. I am replacing the infobox with the original. I've also edited the original infobox as you suggested, to take into account any positive changes that the one proposed for deletion had. Crickettragic (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought I've withdrawn my nomination. I'll wait until it is no longer in use. Crickettragic (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I notice he tried to do you for 3RR lol. Speaking of which, are you able to revert the St Kilda Football Club article back again? It's currently at BrianBeahr's version and I've already undid his revision twice in the last 24 hours. Crickettragic (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As expected, it looks like our friend doesn't want to play ball. With his ban ended he goes straight back to reverting the St Kilda article back to his version. Jevansen (formerly Crickettragic) (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon redirect

I did not close the AfD, however, unless there is some reason not to enforce the ended AfD, then I would certainly push the matter. If you're telling me that there is a lack of consensus, then there are appropriate avenues to approach this, as opposed to giving me a hard time. --Mhking (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So help me understand; if there is only one or two voices in an AfD, then it is not considered valid? How many voices makes it valid? Does that mean that if there are only one or two voices raised in opposition then the article should not be removed or redirected? If that is the case, then why do articles with only one or two voices get removed regularly? What makes this situation different? --Mhking (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mother's Cookies

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mother's Cookies, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother's Cookies. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Oscarthecat (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Seems so. I'll rather be fixing coords or improving articles then dealing with time wasting vandals. Bidgee (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bah

If i see another bloody over there centric thing about ranches (our wa cataloguers in the state idiot box library use 'railroading') the station art smells of some horrible generalisations, heheh - but give me indonesian subs to really rise the ire :) - trust all is well over your way - SatuSuro 12:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're talking about Station (Australian agriculture) or have I been looking at this image for too long?? Bidgee (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh I was talking up the first - stump me grinders i cannot see the connection with the second :( SatuSuro 12:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I just uploaded and added info to that image when I seen your comment on Longhair's talkpage and noticed that you said "ranches" and "station" and put two and two together. Isn't often that I can do that. ;) :P Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Omicron Iota

Thanks for taking care of that AfD. I have a question. Something I read, when researching that article, made me believe that it had already been speedy deleted earlier. Isn't there a way to block a title to prevent the article from being recreated again? Unschool (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalina

Would you be prepared to work cooperatively to improve the Emmalina article or put the verifiable information somewhere? I think there is notability in being a demonstration of the early concerns of Youtube security (she was also a well-viewed meme in the early days of Youtube, even if she isn't now). There is some notability there, even if it doesn't deserve a separate article, it should go somewhere. Any sugestions? (Reply here). JRG (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think she deserves a line or two within the YouTube article, if that. Although she of her own free will decided to launch her life into her own brand of internet stardom, most of her viewers have likely moved onto the next big thing. We shouldn't prolong her public persona if she no longer wants it. Her 15 minutes are over. -- Longhair\talk 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot - not. Completely uncooperative. I don't know why I bother sometimes. JRG (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You got an answer. No need to get all huffy because it wasn't the answer you wanted. -- Longhair\talk 07:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No - I didn't get an answer. I got an uncooperative person who has no intention of working with users who are trying in good faith to improve articles. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about improving the encyclopedia, but time and time again I see deletion debates dominated by people who couldn't be bothered doing that, are too motivated by their own self-opinion on how not notable an article is and would never help another user find the best way to proceed with an article. I thought you might be an exception to that. Apparently not. JRG (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to work on the article, or try to squeeze the article in anywhere, because IMHO, there should be no article. She's a young girl who has tried to reduce any harm to herself, and we should be doing everything, as reasonable people, by helping her do that. She want's her article gone, and I tend to see that as a positive effect. You came here looking for an answer, and you got one. I'm sorry, I disagree with your goals here. Like I said above, her time has been and gone. Let her be. -- Longhair\talk 08:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Metaltome.com

I recently created a site for metaltome.com and was curious why you deleted instantly saying that i didn't state the importance of the site. I did i said it is a social networking site directed towards metal heads and i a place where we can gather from around the world to discuss metal and enjoy metal. I'm just kinda baffled on how to explain it differently. do i need to define social networking or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturus41 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get it right you prat

I have made no edits to such an article, moron. 89.241.105.87 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NNDB&oldid=245026416"