User talk:Osbojos

If you're looking for the Categories for deletion discussion, please note it's been moved to: User_talk:Osbojos/Categories_for_Deletion_Issues

Welcome!

Hello, Osbojos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 20:23, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Wide Angle (PBS)

Hi Osbojos! Just wanted to let you know that if you find an article like Wide Angle (PBS) which has a more complete article about the same subject elsewhere (that is, Wide Angle (PBS series), redirecting it is much easier than going through all the steps of AfD. Happy editing! -- Jonel | Speak 03:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image help

Carnildo, My problem with Orphanbot is that it makes no exceptions for images that are PD, but that a tag doesn't exist for (e.g., [[Image:10x.jpg]], there's no country tag for Yugoslavia). In that case, users often include reasoning why it's ok to reuse in the image in the description. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote directly above, but it seems like you're saying that when an appropriate tag doesn't exist, including PD info in the description will suffice. I agree, but Orphanbot doesn't consider description/summary comments when removing images, which seems to contradict your own suggestion. Is there any way you could prevent Orphanbot from deleting images that have description/summary info, and leaving those cases to a human instead? --Osbojos 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no country-specific PD tag, then put the generic {{PD}} tag on the image and add a detailed description of exactly why it's in the public domain. --Carnildo 08:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but the generic PD tag is being phased out, I think this is just delaying the problem rather than solving it. Would it really be that hard to have the robot flag notag images that have summary information for human follow up instead of deleting them? I completely understand the need for Orphanbot, but when it makes a mistake, it's a lot of work to fix. --Osbojos 21:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be too hard to flag them. The majority of unknown-source and unknown-copyright images have some sort of summary information, usually useless source information like "found on Google", or a simple description of the image like "The Rolling Stones in concert". The images already get reviewed by the admin who deletes them from Wikipedia. --Carnildo 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bill Moyer's edits

Nice work on the Bill Moyers page. I was a bit scared after seeing someone had made over a dozen edits that I was going to spend the next several hours of my life in revert hell. --Osbojos 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say, sometimes it takes a lot of picking to get somewhere, but I do try to be orderly and organized about it, according to Logical argument form. And as "objective" as possible. -shrugs-

Thanks! :)

("I was a bit scared...." Nothing like a little excitement, no? lol)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Apologies Osbojos, I didn't see your compromise version until after I'd edited my compromise version over the top. --Zleitzen 01:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with possible vanity spammers?

If you could take a look at Mariano Ristori Morakis..... It's been tagged but whoever edited after that removed the tags without addressing the problem. I only noticed because I looked at the history after *I* tagged it.

I found it while following a chain that started at Cristian Mac Entyre, which I also had to tag. One or both of these guys appear to be using Wikipedia to plug their artwork, and they are editing a number of pages related to their work in support of this. It would not be such a big deal, except they don't appear to be "notable" WP:BIO.

Will you help by taking a look at either of these articles? I'm only one man (or Antelope).... ;) --Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help on the NAM page

Done and done. Thanks for the compliment also. Enough to make an antelope blush. 'Cept guy antelopes don't blush. ;)

--Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BC pic under Boston education

I'm not hugely attached to having a pic of BC there, but I'm wondering how even a picture of BU (indubitably in Boston) would be irrelevant in your opinion. Aepoutre 16:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe irrelevant wasn't the ideal word choice. I wouldn't remove a photo of a Boston-located school from the Boston page, but I'd be a bit skeptical of its inclusion. It's just that there are something like 50 schools in the metroboston area. Even if you limit it to the more notable ones: MIT, Harvard, BC, BU, Berklee, Emerson, Suffolk, others I'm probably forgetting, which one do you pick? You can't put an image for every campus into that section, so which one is sufficiently representative? Also, I get the impression there's a minor status war between BC or BU (and probably other schools) regarding which one is depicted as the "best" school on wikipedia, so I think edits like the BC photo addition that could potentially be construed as marketing should be closely scrutinized. What do you think? --Osbojos 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the photo had been there for quite some time. Someone removed it because "BC isn't in Boston," but it doesn't make Wikipedia better to just remove photos, especially if they are good photos of something mentioned in the article. A better solution would be to replace it with a school in the City of Boston... but in reference to that turf war you just mentioned -- I'd say the removal of the photo was more a part of that "war" than my putting it back in. I say it stays, because it's been there for a long time and there was no good reason to remove it. Let me know what you think of what I think, haha! Aepoutre 17:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's been there for a long time" isn't a justification. If something is inaccurate or POV, I'm sure you wouldn't make that same argument. As for there being no good reason to remove it, I think I've mentioned several good reasons (1) it's not in Boston, (2) there are many schools in and around Boston, why is BC the most representative? As for the turf war aspect, I think adding a photo of BU or BC is much more warlike than removing a photo of either school when added in a marginally relevant context. I still think the photo should be replaced, but I don't care enough about the issue to press it. Do what you will. Cheers. --Osbojos 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, by "been there a long time," I meant, "before my time," as in, "I didn't put it there, I just replaced it after someone removed it." When you said "I wouldn't remove a photo of a Boston-located school from the Boston page, but I'd be a bit skeptical of its inclusion" (and "adding a photo of BU or BC is much more warlike than removing a photo" seems to support it), my impression was that you thought it was added recently (perhaps by myself) as part of said turf war. Sorry about that. Like I said, I understand the justification for its removal as "not being in Boston," but I still maintain that if it isn't good enough despite depicting the reference thereto made in the article itself, then another picture should be found. Unfortunately, as you said, you can't show pictures of every school. I also maintain that if BC is in the article, and it's the only picture someone bothered to post, it doesn't do any harm but rather improves Wikipedia. Honestly, I don't think it's particularly supportive of BC just because someone included a picture once out of "good faith." I think part of wikipedia is to assume that good faith, so I'd rather assume that and make wikipedia better by including pictures than getting rid of them. Thanks for the input. If you don't care too much, I'll try to re-include it, or should we wait until a more experiences wikipedian weighs in on it? I'm pretty new to this, so let me know what you think, because I would really rather keep it. Aepoutre 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't include it, and I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything. Sorry if I gave that impression. Don't worry about "more experienced wikipedians" if everyone had that attitude, nothing would ever get done and no one would ever become a more-experienced wikipedian. If you add it back and someone really thinks its inappropriate, they'll just revert it, it only takes a second. You're right that good faith (WP:AGF) is a wikipedia policy. Another one is be bold in your edits (WP:BB). If you really want to avoid a conflict, why not add a picture of UMass Boston or MassArt instead? Both are in Boston, and avoid the BU/BC rivalry problem. There's probably already a photo uploaded and linked off their respective web pages? Just a suggestion, use your best judgment. --Osbojos 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I used a pic of Harvard Yard (makes sense -- even if it's in Cambridge, it's certainly mentioned, as it's hugely important and famous). I looked at UMass and Massart and it was one ugly pic of Massart and nothing of UMass Boston. I also checked out a couple of the Fenway schools (nothing there) and Northeastern but I thought the Hahvahd Yahd would be appropriate for the education section. Aepoutre 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. --Osbojos 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Deletion Issues

This discussion has been moved to its own page at: User_talk:Osbojos/Categories_for_Deletion_Issues

Replaceable fair use Image:BillMoyers.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BillMoyers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 07:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moyers

Since you weighed in earlier in the debate regarding the exchange between Moyers and O'Reilly, I'd appreciate your input here. —AldeBaer 08:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dart family

Since I see you have taken an interest in the Doc Corbin Dart article, you may have noticed that I created brief pages for Rollin Dart and Dart National Bank that were red links in Doc's article and in the Dart Container article.

While I was in the middle of writing the Rollin Dart piece, someone jumped in and tagged it for speedy deletion. (I contested speedy deletion, and another editor removed the tag.) But they're still a bit thin. If you have any helpful sources, I invite you to add relevant material.

Best wishes! Kestenbaum 05:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mugshot Doc Corbin Dart.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eleanor Clift.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removal of envirowiki link on environmentalism

Wondering why you removed the external link to envirowiki on environmentalism? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Environmentalism&oldid=192919030 ). From Wikipedia:Spam is think that I've done everything correctly. Perhaps you disagree that the website is "truly relevant" to the article? I've added a comment about this on Talk:Environmentalism - answer there if you want. cheers --naught101 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help save Repo Man movie article

Hi Osbojos,

This guy, Dædαlus, is in there trying to remove parts that you, I and many others contributed to the Repo Man article. Please add to the bottom of this thread on the Repo Man talk page that you think the "Notable Motifs" section should not be blanked (erased), but left as is since the Pulp Fiction article also has a "Notable Motifs" section that isn't being considered for removal at all (even by Dædαlus himself).

While I agree that the "Notable Motifs" section could use some work, it certainly won't help the article to delete the whole thing and erase all our work which consists of many multiple contributers over a course of years. I'm willing to work on it and better incorporate it into the article, he just wants to delete it all!

With consensus, we can stop this guy from deleting all our work soon!

Thanks in advance. Cowicide (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Moyers

The vast right wing conspiracy is back at work on Bill Moyers. They are making a concerted effort to re-insert the Silberman allegations that we excluded on consensus. Please put this one back on your watchlist. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think andyvphil is back. Please look at recent edits to Bill Moyers. I can't keep reverting the vandalism on my own, with this new vandal trying to provoke me into a 3RR situation. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 02:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, I am no one's sockpuupet, but by all means come join the discussion. The more the merrier! CENSEI (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

That's fine that you've added those openjurist links back. I removed them because the user was exclusively adding links and not content. Plus, the user admits that he or she is affiliated with the website. That appeared to pose an external link and conflict of interest concern. The openjurist website appears to be new, and aggressively adding links on Wikipedia would be a good way to get the website free exposure. That said, I'm not really inclined to remove them if other people think they're fine. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to note that the part of WP:EL that I was referring to was, "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." I believe I have interpreted that section correctly in removing the links. Chicken Wing (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted some of my edits, I will justify them

On the Dick Proenneke article:

1) I had changed the link of computer science cache to the biological cache. You reverted? You say Dick Proenneke is not a squirrel? I would like you to check where the first link for cache actually goes (a computer science article) - he did not create "a collection of data duplicating original values stored elsewhere or computed earlier, where the original data is expensive to fetch (owing to longer access time) or to compute, compared to the cost of reading the cache. In other words, a cache is a temporary storage area where frequently accessed data can be stored for rapid access." He did, however, much more accurately, create a "store of food made by many species of animals [which includes humans] for future consumption," to protect it from "other species" (eg. bears) that may want to steal it. And yes - humans are a 'species' that does this - not just 'squirrels.'

2) You made '-50 °F' redundant again: '-50 °F degree'. Note that the small circular symbol '°' means degree. Thus you are saying 'negative fifty degrees Fahrenheit degree.' This would be the same thing as writing 'Politician X got 50 % percent of the vote in the election,' i.e. '50 percent percent.' I am a copy-editor, this is a simple mistake.

3) 'In civilization' is just unnecessary - it is assumed by the context and is somewhat meaningless.

4) The quotes were removed because they disagree with Wikipedia's style guidelines - this is not my judgment, this is how Wikipedia works. Wikiquote is designed for the purpose of extended quotes - you may make an article for them there if you desire. If what the speakers said could be integrated into the body of the article, they would be appropriate. In some articles, in some contexts, extended quotation is allowed, but only when it is fundamentally necessary to the context of the article, for example, see the article for the United States Declaration of Independence.

5) You removed the coordinate notation which is Wikipedia standard - it automatically links to the coordinates in the article, and also shows them in the upper right-hand corner of the article. It is unencyclopedic to give instructions to the reader on where to go and what to enter to see the location - hence the Wikipedia standard of coordinate notation.

6) All the edits were summarized under a misleading edit summary which only referred to one of the changes - they must all be mentioned, or done as separate edits.

I am going to redo the changes, as per my explanations - If there are any of them you disagree with, please discuss them here or on the talk page, rather than just putting them back. I am only trying to follow Wikipedia's style guidelines to the best of my ability. Thanks Chris b shanks (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case on Andyvphil and Bill Moyers

You may be interested. Case here. ► RATEL ◄ 15:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Ratel. I'll try to lend a hand. --Osbojos (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]