See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Angela Beesley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Angela Beesley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is part of the WikiProject Wikipedia, an attempt to improve and organize Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Angela Beesley, has edited Wikipedia as
Angela (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Old Talk was deleted and not restored!

Was this discussion page never created, or was it deleted? -anon

The talk page was deleted along with the article after the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination) was closed, but that has been reopened and the article subsequently restored. If the article is kept, I, or another administrator, will make sure to undelete the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it common procedure to delete a talk page when an article is up for deletion? What is the point of deleting it? -anon
Yes; when an article is deleted and the AfD closed as such, it is common for the discussion page to be deleted as well. However, this is a unique circumstance; the AfD was first closed as delete, with both the article and talk page deleted. Following that, though, the AfD was re-opened and the article, but not the talk page, restored. If the article is kept, I'll restore the talk page and merge this discussion in, but for now I'll leave it at the status quo. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It has been restored, but there's nothing relevant to the current article in the history. Angela. 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Old page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angela_Beesley&oldid=63344441

[edit] image

left From the page history:

(cur) (last) 23:41, 4 Apr 2005 Pakaran (As stated in a previous edit summary, Angela wants the pic removed.)

If this were anyone else, would we just accede to the request in such a manner? Is taking a 'personal request' like this fair? Do any other reasons exist not to show the picture? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The one at Commons:Image:Angelabeesley.jpg is more appropriate if an image really needs to be there. Angela. 23:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Difficult. On principle, I dislike the idea of decreasing the usefulness of a biographical article because of the whims of the subject (regardless of how respected the subject). On the other hand, it's good to be polite to people and respect their wishes; I'm just not sure we should do so at the expense of article quality. — Matt Crypto 00:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A replacement works. — Matt Crypto 00:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Go with the replacement. I guess in rhetrospect I agree that almost nobody else in the world would be allowed to make that kind of request (absent copyright issues with the picture, etc) so we should follow the same rules. Pakaran 00:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is Angela married? I don't see a mention of a spouse in the article. And no, I'm not looking for a Lady Voldemort, I was just curious. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

She is not—to the best of my knowledge. The article did talk one time about who she was "romantically involved" with, but I removed this mention as being thoroughly unencyclopedic. (It's not exactly a secret, mind you, but we're not a tabloid, and should stick to independently verifiable facts.) JRM · Talk 17:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image guidelines

Where is the manual of style page on image formatting? I've looked, but I can't seem to find it. Guanaco 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested improvements and corrections

"Elected into the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in 2004, she is the vice-president of Wikia, a commercial wiki hosting company, and acts as a consultant to Ourmedia."

"Into" a board doesn't make sense. The joining of the first two sentences makes it sound like Wikia has something to do with Wikimedia, which it doesn't. Wikia is not a commercial wiki hosting company - it runs Wikicities, which could be described as that but that's not exactly what it is, and Wikia certainly isn't that since it started as a company to create a search engine. I don't see why they fact I co-founded Wikicities was removed. "Acts as a consultant" to Ourmedia seems a weird unsourced phrase. Why not leave it as the more accurate statement that I'm on their advisory board? The smh link would be better as a link to the article in The Age, where it was originally published rather than a copy of that article. Angela. 11:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. :=) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Angela probably knows all this already; she is actually one of our most long-time contributors. - Fredrik | tc 13:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Fredrik, that was a joke. :-) bogdan 13:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I just couldn't resist;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't want to risk violating Wikipedia:Autobiography. Angela. 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal life?

If I'm not mistaken, she's with Erik. Shouldn't it be included as it's wiki page? -- Rrjanbiah 10:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe we can even do some research and make a list of her ex-boyfriends! :-X
Now, joking aside, please see the "Presumption in favor of privacy" section of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page. It basically says that unless this fact was published in mainstream press, we won't write it. bogdan 12:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
For the record, Angela and I are not together anymore.--Eloquence* 12:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Really sorry to bring up this query. Peace to you. --Rrjanbiah 07:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moved

Moved this comment from the article by User:68.77.154.10 -- Astrokey44|talk 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) :"Angela please contact me daviddoman@gmail.com thank you"

[edit] Not deleting it doesn't harm anybody, but...

does anybody really think this can grow to more than a stub? Not intending to troll here, I like the idea of people tributing angela with an article. It's just I'm really curious about whether there's anyone who really expects this to become a real encyclopedic article. (PS: having the same thougths with angela, anthere & timshell) --euyyn 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a biography

Please ensure that links have more than just a one-liner from Angela in them. I want either facts about Angela or speeches by her. Wikipedia and Wikia have their own pages. -- 75.26.5.242 02:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes

I've never lived in Prahran. Ourmedia is not newly launched. Who I live with is not encyclopedic information. Some slides from one of a dozen presentations in not a useful link, and it's not even a proper copy of the final slides I used, but a draft version I sent in advance. I go to conferences every month, so I don't see why WikiSym is being singled out. I suggest reverting back at least to this version, though that one also has some of the above errors. Angela. 23:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

All feedback incorporated into bio, except for the deep revert. I will happily incorporate other info provided by subject since her trustworthiness, sincerity, integrity and dedication to the collaborative process is well-established. -- 67.121.113.14 07:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Angie: Please indicate on this talk page if "Community Relations" is inappropriately linked to "public relations". These non-standard job titles can be a little confusing sometimes. If it implies setting policy beyond that of a traditional PR role, I think that it would help the reader to indicate such. Also, if "promoter/promoting" is not the right term, please indicate such. -- 67.121.113.14 07:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't refer to me as "Angie".
Community relations has nothing to do with PR. I'm not promoting anything.
Where I live is irrelevant, unencyclopedic and unverifiable. If this has to say anything about where I "live", it would need to say I live in England, since there are valid sources for that.
Angela. 11:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Is where every living person featured on Wikipedia lives also irrelevant, or is it just you? Shall I start removing where everyone lives? Will you help me? 4kinnel 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should just get a life and stop worrying about where Angela lives? Grace Note 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes Gracie. 4kinnel 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Angela The person you are talking too above is Banned User User:A Morrow. Be very careful with this user. Do not give away any personal information. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that until today. Thanks for the warning. Angela. 02:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

It would be cool if someone could add a bit more about the development of the partnership between Angela and Jimmy. As it stands no, the article seems to skip from her being a valued editor to going into business to form Wikia. Just a thought. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 22:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS

Please remove the ridiculous "sources". Anything on meta is not officially from the Foundation, LiveJournal is about the least reliable source I can think of, and nothing on this page has been sourced from the Wikimedia:Board of Trustees page. Angela. 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't the new york times, but what was the problem with the age reference? BTW, M7's recent revision of the Board of Trustees page seems to have wiped out all the english... RN 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mention The Age reference. I was mostly concerned about linking to this livejournal with no one bothering to even check what that page is or whether it's my account. Angela. 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Anything on wikimediafoundation.org is officially from the Foundation, and your birthplace and year of birth is in the history there (being originally put there by yourself), even if you now removed it. Of course, you may arrange for all those previous revisions to be "oversighted" out of existence... Margana 15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:RS under "Company and organization websites", which says, "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias." No such bias exists, or at least logically should exist, with basic factual information and information regarding organization structural changes. As such, I've restored the Wikimedia Foundation ref, moved the Meta page to the "official" copy of the press release (C'mon, I know it was easier to just blanket delete, but you couldn't take 10 seconds?), and restored The Age reference, which should not have been deleted in the first place. I've removed the LJ ref, as that clearly is not verifiable.--MikeJ9919 05:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should tell Angela to change the photograph. Too much red. 134.93.181.159 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not very familiar with the way wikipedia works, aint you? ;) --euyyn 00:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stub?

Would anybody mind if I tag the article as a stub? It's not like it isn't a stub, but many people seem to have strong emotions about this article, so I ask... --euyyn 00:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Only 11 sentances. . . feel free. --Banana04131 02:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia, Inc.

Please take a look at Wikia, Inc.. I suspect it has been repeatedly edited this month by puppets of the banned user Amorrow using IP addresses that start with 75. --JWSchmidt 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also 67.121.114.170 and probably others. --JWSchmidt 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Angela is aware that Amorrow is editing Wikia, Inc. article. [1] He edits her article too. I think she gets email from him also. Morrow edits all the *important* article related to the Foundation. He targets Wikipedia policy pages too. FloNight talk 17:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Living in Australia

According to Francs2000, Angela lives in Australia. This should definatly be in the article if true. Ted BJ 11:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Francs2000 is not a reliable source. --bainer (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And anyway if stated, it would be mere trivia unless we included its (probable) implications with her work in the Foundation, or any other important consequences it's had. And there's certainly no source about that... Adding it alone wouldn't add knowledge to the article; only information. --euyyn 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but her living in Australia is a) public knowledge (please see Angela's wiki/blog) and b) a pretty important fact. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You did not understand me: I agree her living in Australia is probably an important fact. But why is it an important fact? Has it had implications with her work in the Foundation? Which ones? Has it had any other important consequences? Which ones? There's certainly no secondary source treating theese questions, so we can only state she does live in Australia, period. We cannot state encyclopedically her living in Australia is an important fact. So it would be trivia. Information unrelated to the other information in the page.
WP:RS states her blog (hers, not any blog) is valid as a source for her personal data, so it's OK for me (and I would say for bainer too; note Francs2000 is not Angela's wiki).
Excuse my bad mood today. --euyyn 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
My blog doesn't say I live in Australia. It only says I was thinking about moving to Sydney, not that I do live in Sydney (which I don't). Angela. 08:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It says you live in a certain suburb of Melbourne, though, and links to an Australian suburb page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean this post? That only says we looked at places in Prahran, not that we ever lived there (which we didn't). Angela. 09:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I misread it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious. I wonder how many "I misread it"s are circulating on Wikipedia. Ninja Joey 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New proposals in WP:BLP

There are two new proposals being discussed in the TALK page of WP:BLP. One would create a policy in which biographies could not be created for living people on Wikipedia UNTIL they had already been the subject of substantial biography in other published sources. This would address the notability creap problem which naturally results from Wikipedia having far more bio space than Britannica, and the Parkinson's law need to fill it.

My own proposal is even more stringent (although it also includes the no first bio policy): I propose that any living person be given the option to request that Wikipedia carry no dedicated biographical article on them at all (although biographical material would still appear on members of teams and bands and so on, it would be under a different heading and would therefore be strictly topical, with trivia and personal detail left out).

So far, it looks like my own suggestion has not been doing well-- it seems that people are crazy to read about Bill Clinton's sex life on Wikipedia, and nowhere else (even though of course thera are multiple and more detailed sources out there if you're really into that sort of thing).

Either of these proposals would make Ms. Beesley happy. It will be interesting to see if she gets satisfaction without them. If she does, it will because of a sort of favoritism which isn't shown to the general semi-notable person who has to suffer through Wiki bios on themselves. So I follow the case with interest. SBHarris 08:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I've noticed that information added to this page stating Miss Beesley's date and place of birth (by other users) has been reverted. Why is this exactly?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 08:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy issues. Please read WP:LIVING. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.
If this really is a big issue, then why haven't the versoins with her birthday been removed vis Wikipedia:Oversight? I just hunted back in the history and found her full birthdate. Seems that a determined identity thief wouldn't have to look hard to find Beesley's birthdate if he/she so wanted to. Hbdragon88 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not an issue. My birthday is listed on meta:Wikipedians by birthday. I see no reason for it not to be in this article. Angela. 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

This is for others as well. Since I haven't been following this closely, and I would like to have voiced in on an AfD, consider this a comment to be copied to the next AfD that takes place. It's for "strong delete."

The WP:BIO guidelines have a item regarding being published in multiple news sources as the _primary subject_ (uncle G overlooked this last part before). I have done a google news search for "Angela Beesley" and it would seem that she's not a primary subject in even one, just a person who happened to be mention as a board member and founder of some projects. It would also seem that several of the very few results weren't from a news source anyone has heard of. I think people are trying really hard to justify it simply because she's associated with teh project, but realistically, even in notable news mentions of Wikipedia, she's almost always just a brief mention.

Nathan J. Yoder 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Register reports that "One of the most prominent evangelists for the site, Angela Beesley, recently resigned from the board of the non-profit that runs Wikipedia, the WikiMedia Foundation, in the hope of having her own entry removed from Wikipedia."[2] If the Register says she is "prominent" then deleting her would be vandalism? You can't get unfamous. It doesn't work that way. Once you are known, you can't cry "I want a do-over." This is reality. She played a key role in a world famous enterprise. She sought publicity as an evalgelist for wikipedia. Pretending to be an unknown is simply not a workablr option at this point. She could change her name or go incognito, but she wishes to continue to be associated with Jimbo, Wikia, and Wikipedia. Frankly, trying to be delisted from Wikipedia is just one more noteable thing about her (maybe on purpose for all I know, but I don't really care). The bottom line is just let it go and stop fighting to delist a noteable person. Further efforts just look like an attempt to increase noteability by creating controversy. WAS 4.250 03:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on Angela's notability, just because The Register says she is "one of the most prominent evangelists," doesn't mean that she meets notability. The Register isn't a credible source and that article was written by Andrew Orlowski, who is just slightly notorious for slagging off at Wikipedia. It's largely a sarcastic op and he doesn't have his facts straight, anyway. I think we all know that Angela didn't resign from the board "in the hope of having her own entry removed." I wouldn't go to that site if you're looking for facts. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
For your reading pleasure, Andrew Orlowski and The Register. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be improper to mention in the article that the subject would like the article deleted? Very few articles get to have mixed levels of reference in that way. It would be a special thing to have. —vivacissamamente 05:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
John Seigenthaler, Sr. That is all. - Kookykman|(t)e 02:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm interpreting that as a vote for the establishment of a fork/subarticle, perhaps Angela Beesley Wikipedia biography controversy. That is an interesting idea. You've clearly put a lot of thought into the issue. —vivacissamamente 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I gave it no thought whatsoever. In fact, I don't give a damn about this article: I was just pointing to a previous Wikipedia-bio related controversy and the ill press that came from it. - Kookykman|(t)e 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A note about notability

I became aware of Angela Beesley because of the special election that's on now. I wondered, why was there a special election? Who is Beesley, how did she come to join the board, and why did she leave? This seems important, as her resignation letter isn't very specific. Anyway, in the course of looking into that it was hard to find the information I wanted, so after doing the searches, I have summarized it here. Sbwoodside 16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also there's a speaker's page about her here with more info: [3]. Sbwoodside 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better image?

Does anyone have a better image of Beesley? I think that the one that's on the page right now looks a bit photoshopped (I'm not saying it is photoshopped, but it has that kind of airbrushed appearance that they like in certain magazines...). Anyway, there's a CC-BY-SA image here [4] that's a possibility an a bit better IMO. Sbwoodside 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That true, please get a better foto (Dont want to be mean but that photo looks like a photo shopped MJ) Peacekeeper II 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beesley's attempt to remove this page is relevant

Beesley's attempt to remove this page is relevant, because it is connected to her resignation from the board. There is even some evidence that she resigned in order to have the page removed, since she initiated a removal attempt immediately following her resignation, on the grounds that she was no longer relevant as a bio subject. It's not open-and-closed evidence, and so I didn't present that argument in the article, although someone else might think that it should be.

In any case, this isn't really a meta article in the same way that Wikipedia isn't a meta article. The matter of a board member, and her resignation, and her efforts to delete a page about her, are potentially relevant to anyone in the world who is interested in Wikipedia, whether or not they are a user or an insider. Sbwoodside 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly not relevant in an encyclopaedia, and I've removed it. If you seriously think she resigned from the board to get the article deleted, you obviously haven't done your research. --bainer (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are (say) Mel Gibson's drunken comments about Jews relevant in an encyclopaedia but Ms. Beesley's (presumably level-headed) actions to game the biographical system of an encylopaedia which she herself helped develop, not encyclopaedically relevant? Granted that Mr. Gibson is more famous than Ms. Beesely, but on the other hand, what Mel Gibson did had nothing at all do to with encyclopedias or how they are made, operated, and came about in the world. If ever there was a natural topic FOR an enclyclopedia, I think it would certainly BE encyclopedias themselves, and the actions of the people who make them and the rules which operate them---- not details of drunk driving arrests of U.S. movie actors. In any case, if you have some oracle which informs you on matters of what information about the world and the people who inhabit it, is intrinsically "encyclopedic" and what information is NOT, I'm sure we'd all like to have access to it. Would you mind sharing? Because otherwise, all this is a real problem. One that far transcends any particulars in the lives of Ms. Beesley or Mr. Gibson. It's been extensively discussed in WP:BLP, and so far as I can tell, we're no closer to resolution of it than we ever were. SBHarris 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop trolling. It's ridiculous to suggest I resigned in order to get an article deleted. Angela. 15:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If you mean me, I never suggested that. I'm simply noting that it appears that you want the rules of Wikipedia (its policies) changed for you, now that they crimp YOUR life. Well, they crimp many people's lives. The system you helped build contains an inherently aggressive and annoying feature, and to some extent you are therefore responsible for it. You actually helped craft and set present privacy policy for Wikipedia, and if you proposed a rule that people should control their own biographies, you haven't mentioned it. In any case, I'm sorry you didn't notice the bad effects of the privacy policy you helped create, before it began to bother you personally. Education is painful; pain is educational.

And by the way, I find your use of the word troll somewhat insulting, as it suggests that I'm here arguing this problem for the sake of the argument, rather than because I care about the issue. You couldn't be more wrong about that. You know nothing about me. SBHarris 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris, Mel Gibson is an internationally famous movie star and his drunken comments were reported in hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets across the planet. The internal functions of Wikipedia are exactly that, internal functions, and of no consequence to the outside world. When the AfD gets reported in the global mass media, then feel free to come back and mount the argument again.
And when she suggested that you were trolling, I presume she was referring to your accusation that she was gaming the system. Please stop trolling. --bainer (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Bainer, Angela, please see WP:CIVIL. —vivacissamamente 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand this argument that Wikipedia internal issues cannot be written about in Wikipedia articles. Lots of people who read about Wikipedia log in to Wikipedia. When they log in, they will (currently) see an election notice. Thus, this is a public issue, even if it is (in some way) internal. And -- the election was driven by Beesley's resignation, so she's relevant. And -- she's attempted to have her page deleted several times, including directly after resigning, which is suggestive, if it isn't intentional. The issue of various people attempting to have their pages deleted has come up in the press, and it's a contentious issue outside of Wikipedia-editing community, making it even more relevant.
Now, looking at WP:BLP and WP:BIO it seems that Beesley meets the criteria of both policies. So, can you point me to a policy that states that Wikipedia people are exempt from biographies? Or that their notable actions (which affect thousands of people) are verboten? Because if you can't, then it seems to me that the content should stay. Sbwoodside 02:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Things to do with Wikipedia are sometimes mentioned in the encyclopaedia itself, but the reason is the same reason Mel Gibson's statements are mentioned: they attract substantial attention from the outside world. Bogdanov Affair discusses how the matter spilled over from newsgroups to forums onto Wikipedia. John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy is an article in its own right. Henryk Batuta is a fairly prominent hoax, in which internal Wikipedia matters are discussed. There are other examples. An excellent example is Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia, which distinguishes those aspects interesting to the outside world with the stuff that's purely internal.
The key difference here is there is nothing to show that anyone outside of Wikipedia cares about the AfD. As I said above, when it gets reported in the global mass media, then feel free to come back and mount the argument again.
And finally please stop suggesting that she resigned in order to get the article deleted, it's a preposterous suggestion. --bainer (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you started out by arguing that internal functions of Wikipedia should not be written up in Wikipedia articles. Now, it seems like you are saying that they can / should be written up, but only if anyone outside of Wikipedia cares about them. To me, your second standard seems like a reasonable standard. It seems to me similar to WP:NOR.
In this particular case, there is outside interest. Let's say someone is curious as to why she resigned and they turn to Google. As of this writing, when I google angela beesley resigned, on the first page is a wikitruth article that discusses her attempts to have her own article deleted and connects her resignation to that effort. That is where I first learned about this issue, and I was surprised to find no mention of it here. Also, there is a The Register article that covers the same territory, and a blog post by Seth Finkelstein on the same subject.
You accuse me of making a "preposterous suggestion" but I am not the originator. I won't deny that I find the argument has some merit. Especially since Beesley herself linked the two subjects together quite clearly in her third deletion nomination. However, I'm inclined to be conservative on the matter, and so you will find that the content I wrote in the article does not make the speculation, merely reports the facts (she resigned, then she nominated the article for deletion). Since the content is relevant, and NPOV, they should be in the article. Sbwoodside 05:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, in case you haven't noticed, Wikimedia (which includes Wikinews and many other infomation outlets besides Wikipedia) is a monster now so large, and has tentacles into so many places, that there has long since ceased to be any good bright dividing line between its purely internal affairs and things have have leaked into whatever you think of as "the outside world." FYI, the information world is not just whatever comes out of Anderson Cooper's lips on yer TV. If something was ever notable enough to have been featured as a Wiki for long, it's notable enough to be so forever, just by nature of having survived non-deletion as vandalism, on a medium as large as Wikipedia is. If you think not, you're still part of the world of 8-track tapes and TRS-80's (I suggest you clear your mind of the past and put all that out in the garage, maybe in that Studebaker you have out there up on on blocks...) You may object that if I'm right, that this is self-referential and unfair. Indeed. But it is also true. It's also part of a problem, and one of the reasons why ANY dedicated bio information on media like Wikipedia is such a bad idea to begin with.

Second of all, Angela Beesley may have resigned from Wikimedia but she has not exactly attempted to crawl into a hole somewhere and pull the dirt in after. She'd be notable as a subject of a Wikibio under current rules, merely from her continued involvement with Wales and a few other insiders in Wikia. You know-- those guys who finally figured out that there's Adsense gold to be made from those Wikis that you and I write for free? Who raised 4 million from angel investors this year, and will no doubt one day float an IPO, and get rich? But I digress. The subject is biography. I simply don't want Wikipedia to be the repository of personal information. I don't want somebody else deciding who's "notable" enough to be profiled, because notability is (as I said) no longer a thing which can be isolated from information databases themselves. The only way to deal with this whole problem is not to let the camel get its nose in the tent in the first place. Not to decide that you have to do something, only after you realize that you personally have a problem. SBHarris 21:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying about camels. Perhaps we should all come back once we're sure we understand Wikipedia:No original research? --bainer (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The camel and tent is a metaphor I'm sure you can google. It has to do with situations where one-thing-tends-to-lead-to-another once they get started, so the best thing to do is not to let them get started, so you don't go down that road. Nor try to make ends justify means. In law they call this fruit of a poison tree.

As for WP:NOR you can read it like the torah and the talk page like the talmud and it won't do you the least good in this situation. For the problem is, that one cannot write an encyclopedia without some originality--- to do otherwise would be simple plagiarism, and even then, there's some originality involved in deciding what to plagarize and where and in what order and sequence. Now, you can call such originality "research," or you can can call it your Uncle Bill. I don't care what you call it, it smells the same by any name. And it is what it is. You can compile quite a dossier on anybody without doing any of what Wikipedia calls "original research" and I'm not even getting to the question of what kinds of qualitative stuff you do when you dig up difficult-to-find sources like a yearbook in a high school library, and make it available on the net, zits and all, linked to a name searchable by Google. Suffice to say that the results of this do not accord with The Golden Rule. You wouldn't like the kind of bio I could write/compile on you without any "original research", nor would I like the kind you could write on me. Thus, the whole thing is inherently a nasty and evil business. I'm not even sure we can do much about it, by keeping it off Wikipedia. But it's a start. So I propose that we start. You do what you can. SBHarris 04:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think both sides of this debate need to try to remain civil. I am sure that the Bainer and Angela are not Luddites or antiquarians (not that there's anything wrong with that). —vivacissamamente 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, since my last comment (of 05:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)) has not been rebutted, I have re-added the information with more detail and links to media articles, etc. Sbwoodside 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it again. Blogs are not reliable sources, Wikitruth is absolutely not a reliable source, and Orlowski doesn't know what he's talking about. She resigned because of internal board matters, end of story. --bainer (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that there is a legitimate controversy here. El Reg is certainly reliable as to a) we know that this is a published opinion from a verifiable source, and b) it's not sourced to claim that Beesley resigned to delete the article, but that they interpreted it that way. Please re-read WP:RS in order to understand this subtle distinction. The sources are reliable in the sense that real people can be reliably confirmed to hold the view that she resigned in order to have her article deleted. I must admit I find these constant deletions to be very abrubt. I have reviewed WP:LIVING very carefully and I find that it supports my interpretation. I have demonstrated that this is not the view of a tiny majority. Since people keep deleting the content, here is my latest version. In my opinion this is an important issue since it deals with Wikipedia's ability to hold itself to a consistent standard on biographies for Wikipedians. Sbwoodside 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll just pop in here and say that I was led here from an outside source aswell, and I think that if you want to question the validity of wiki truth then you should take the opportunity to clear up the truth here. It seems obvious from this disscussion that she has been trying to have the article deleted and that she spends quite a bit of time poking around here. And if the reasons for avoiding mention of this in the article is because it makes one look bad to poke around on their own article and, for lack of a better term, whine about it's content, well, that's not really a good reason at all. I don't think specifically why she resigned is important but it may be worth it to mention that she does have a lot of opinions about her own article. Just though I'd mention that--Matt D 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy aside, cross-namespace linking (in this case, linking directly from article-space to previous AfD discussions in the Wikipedia namespace) is generally discouraged. Some mirrors may not use anything more than article space content, thereby resulting in broken links at their end. -- Longhair 04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can use a plain hyperlink then. Sbwoodside 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am clueless what is so objectionable to Angela. Her photo is nice. It's a half smile. The biography doesn't say that she's an axe murderer or likes to torture small animals. It's written nicely. Miesbu (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did Beesley resign?

I would like to split off the discussion on a specific point that User:Thebainer made, quote: She resigned because of internal board matters, end of story.

Now I'm very interested in this because myself and many other people had to vote to replace her. Is there a problem with the Foundation that needs to be addressed? If so, that would be important. However, I can't find any evidence to support User:Thebainer's interpretation. Do you have inside information, if so, please share it. As far as I can find, Wikimedia has made no official statement about why she resigned (which is unusual). Beesley herself said: Overall, it's not because I'm unhappy being involved with Wikimedia, though I am concerned about certain events and tendencies that have arisen within the organisation since the start of this year. I would prefer to be involved in Wikimedia from a different angle rather than focusing my attention on Board matters. [5]

Again, a mid-term resignation is unusual and disruptive, so I think that we, as voters, are forced to read between the lines at least a little bit and wonder what "certain events and tendancies" refers to. However, there's not much more that I've found there.

Then we have the only other piece of evidence that I have found, which is that immediately following her resignation Beesley asked to have her biography deleted. Not only that but she herself linked her resignation to the deletion request. She said: My justification for making a third nomination is that my circumstances have changed significantly since the last AfDs - I have resigned from the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Given that this was previously kept on the grounds I was on that Board, there is no longer any reason for this page to be kept.

Now we have several reliable sources (at least [6], [7], [8]) who made (potentially unreliable, but that doesn't matter) interpretions of the available information to conclude that (a) it was ironic for Beesley to want her page deleted and (b) she resigned to have her page deleted. Personally, I don't know if she resigned to have her page deleted. It seems extreme in my view. But the sequence of events DOES for me highlight a definite double-standard on the part of a (former) high-level Wikipedian, to wit, that articles about herself, or maybe Wikipedians in general, should be treated differently from articles about non-Wikipedians. And that, to me, would be a very bad policy for Wikipedia to have, since I believe that Wikipedia should be fully transparent and even handed in all matters. Sbwoodside 04:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification - For myself, I've only made an issue of the irony, not the reason she resigned. The fact of the matter is that, whatever the background, a (former) Wikimedia Foundation Board Member proposing her own Wikipedia biography be deleted, describing it as "full of lies and nonsense", is ironic. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

I frankly don't care about the whys and wherefores of internal wikipedia spats, but I would ask User:Thebainer and other editors to spell out exactly why they keep deleting an adequately sourced section from this article with summaries like "remove irrelevant material and imagined "controversy""? I find this especially troubling given the other assorted ephemera in the article that appears to be considered perfectly encyclopaedic. Perhaps they should be initiating a vote for deletion? --Coroebus 13:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article ought to be merged into Wikia, but that's neither here nor there, because many people seem to react rather vehemently to the suggestion that anything be done with this page (see the previous AfDs).
Regarding the content in question, there are several reasons why it ought to be removed:
  1. The AfD process is an internal matter which is not of interest to the outside world. See discussion above. When the mainstream media (not Orlowski, the fringe media) starts to discuss the inner workings of the deletion process, then that part can go back in.
  2. The part in parentheses in the first paragraph removed is quite blatantly conducting an argument about whether or not the article should be deleted.
  3. Wikitruth is not a reliable source for anything, ever.
  4. Andrew Orlowski is a fringe opinion writer, and cannot be said to represent a significant opinion base. Even if he could, the article of his that is cited is quite plainly incorrect; he states that Angela "recently resigned from the board... in the hope of having her own entry removed from Wikipedia", a conclusion which is demonstrably wrong. His opinion is based on this conclusion, and ought to be disregarded (if it were given regard in the first place).
In short the content is speculative and untruthful, and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. --bainer (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this warrants an article, but as we seem to be stuck with one, I have a few comment to make about your argument:
  1. The AfD is of interest only insofar as it has been referred to by outside parties, but it has, so there is justification for some limited reference to it (i.e. perhaps less than there is here, particularly the utterly irrelevant links to the first two AfDs)
  2. The comments in parentheses are both clumsy and an unnecesary argument (i.e. I agree they should be removed)
  3. Wikitruth is a source of anti-wikipedia comment (i.e. as a source of 'wikitruth says...' criticism), but not as a stand alone source for verifiability of factual claims.
  4. Whether Andrew Orlowski is a fringe writer, or whether he represents a significant opinion base is currently irrelevant personal opinion on your part (i.e. not even WP:OR). The aspects you regard as demonstrably incorrect are WP:OR on your part. The Register is very widely read and considered a reliable source for most other articles. That it, and particularly Orlowski have been vocally anti-wikipedia is not a reason for us to suddenly decide to blacklist them. As a similar example, I think Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail is a fringe opinion writer who represents a minority opinion, but I wouldn't get very far censoring articles based on that belief, partly because some people don't think she's fringe, and partly because it isn't up to me to decide questions like that.
The content is not speculative if it is sourced, it doesn't seem to be untruthful (i.e. it doesn't repeat the claim you object to; although, sadly, truth is not a wikipedia criterion anyway), and in fact belongs in an encyclopedia much more than dull information about what Angela Beesley eats for breakfast or whetever other pointless biographical details have been included in the rest of the article (the list of public appearances is particularly galling) --Coroebus 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Coroebus: I think you understand my points that I've made above. I will go back and look at my edit to see if I can change the parentheses that you noted.
Thebainer: please provide evidence for your statement that Angela "recently resigned from the board... in the hope of having her own entry removed from Wikipedia", [is] a conclusion which is demonstrably wrong. Otherwise I don't see how we can accept it other than as your personal opinion... Sbwoodside 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Her resignation message, or you can simply ask her yourself like most other people did. --bainer (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a problem with this method of verification, though, in that just asking associates before writing articles on them violates WP:NOR; that method of resource creates a primary source. Also, Wikipedia usually doesn't cite internal pages as sources, though here I suppose we have to. And though I don't think Ms. Beesley is lying, I think we technically have to say that her claim is that she resigned because of "certain events and tendencies" (which don't involve this page) and a desire to be "involved in Wikimedia from a different angle." That is to say, we can't write the article citing her word as truth just because we personally trust her. The other sources, even though they are critical of Wikipedia, can't be written off in a neutral article just because the editors know the subject. —vivacissamamente 03:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thebainer: Beesley's public letter is pretty vague, and I don't see how it answers the question: "are you resigning in order to have your article deleted". Of course, Beesley above says that the answer is no. But still -- ignoring Beesley's stature in WP -- we must always consider actions as well as words. And we should ignore her stature in WP, because Wikipedians and non-Wikipedian subjects should get equal treatment in living bios.
Perhaps people that know Beesley personally should recuse themselves from editing this article? This could be a general rule for articles about Wikipedians. Sbwoodside 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If we want to throw policy references around:
--bainer (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If we are allowed to infer nothing from her actions, I guess the path would be to simply cite the actions, Angela's reasons, and any articles suggesting other reasons. However, if there is just the one speculation that she may have done resigned to help get the article deleted, it may be too weak to merit inclusion. I think the "responsibility to get things right" here emphasizes a truth-over-verifiability claim, which is not supposed to be how things operate. Only Ms. Beesley knows for sure why she resigned. —vivacissamamente 07:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have restored a version of the section that does not (as far as I can tell) contain any claims that are objected to here as being false (i.e. no speculation as to why she resigned) but it does report (not claim as indisputable fact) Finkelstein, Orlowski, and Wikitruth's objections that Angela Beesley's actions are ironic given wikipedia policy over other living bios. --Coroebus 07:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems right to me. —vivacissamamente 07:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the direct quote about trolls and nonsense, but it seems OK to me. User:Tom harrison reverted (without leaving a comment here.....) but I restored it. His reasons were: rv - original research; citing wikipedia; statements not supported by sources cited ... mine were: Restored. It's not original research because it's from secondary sources. It doesn't cite a wikipedia article, it cites a wikipedia VfD. The statements are well supported or are direct quotes.
It kind of bothers me that many of the people making reversions don't seem to be reading the talk page. Sbwoodside 18:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Though secondary sources is a necessary condition, the secondary sources ought to be themselves notable, and I'm not entirely convinced of that here. We have 1) an article from Wikitruth, 2) a post on Finkelstein's blog is not, and 3) a Register article.
Now, I think we are mostly agreed that the original AFD deletion debates were themselves not notable enough for mention in the Angela Beesley article. Further, I would say that the notability of sources 1) and 2) is less than or equal to that of the Wikipedia AFD debates. So the most compelling reason for the insertion of the anecdote is, to me, the Register article. If we can produce a bit more notable third-party coverage of the debate, then I'll be convinced it should be included. Right now I'm on the fence. --Saforrest 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
When it comes to the sources, first it's a matter of reliable sources WP:RS. As discussed above, El Reg and Finkelstein's blog both pass the reliability test easily enough. Wikitruth is technically speaking a wiki, but it's only edited by a small number of known people, not the public in general, so we know who it comes from. As for notability the key point is whether or not the "controversy" is notable enough. Since it's been brought up outside of Wikipedia in several reliable sources, and since it involves a major Wikipedia election, then yes, it is notable. As for the AfDs, it's more a matter of whether they are relevant (yes...) and are they reliable sources. I suppose that it's not certain they are technically RS but since they've been quoted by reliable sources, you could just switch the citation to them. Sbwoodside 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I never agreed that Finkelstein's blog was "reliable" as per WP:RS; in fact that page is quite clear that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
As for notability: first, because I don't accept Finkelstein's blog as a Reliable Source (TM), it hasn't been brought up outside of Wikipedia in "several reliable sources", though even if I did, I wouldn't say "two" is enough. The election itself may be notable, if only for this article and a few other related ones, but that doesn't mean the AFD ought to be mentioned.
With regard to the AFD votes being Reliable Sources, I think the page WP:RS pretty much directly implies that they are not. --Saforrest 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation and proper sourcing isn't my main concern. What bothers me is that we have non-notable meta-data in here. Do people really need to know that the subject of the article is trying to get this very article deleted? I don't see too many biography articles mention the subjects' on-Wikipedia activities. While Angela's activities as part of the Foundation and similar "high-level" entities is certainly notable, I really don't see how this is. Angela tried to get her biography deleted. Woop-di-doo. That piece of trivia is hardly encyclopedic, nor is it notable. Oh, and while I'm at it, I don't really thing a detailed timeline of when she was administrator, bureaucrat, and steward is particularly notable either. This article positively reeks of Wikipedia-cruft much more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy of giving subjects of wikibios some control over their own biographies is certainly a matter of a great deal of detate (as you an see on the TALK page of WP:BLP), as so are the attempts of Wikipedians at exalted levels in the Wikimedia power structure to buff or change their own bios--- a privilege they don't accord to others. Ms. Beesley is not alone in doing this; Wales famously has been caught editing his own biography to remove warts, several times.

As for the timeline of Ms. Beesley being promoted to various statums of powers within Wikipedia, including admin, sysop, bureaucrat, steward (which includes ability to crown other users with any powers you like, and also the majic "oversight" function where you alter anything you like on here are make it go away like an unperson figure in a USSR photo), that's notable for what it is implies. Anybody who makes it up through the ranks that fast (did you know there are only 300 sysops, and a lot fewer stewards?) has a LOT of upward pull (I'm talking space-elevator type) with diamondoid strings. Ms. Beesley's rise to that level, THEN Challenger-shuttle-type fall back to zero no doubt probably sets THE all-time record for any human being in Wikimedia. You don't find that notable? I sure do. Inquiring minds want to know who got kicked out of who's whatever, literally or figuratively. If this had happened at a company like FORD or GOOGLE, it would rate many articles in Forbes or whatever. But here on Wiki, you're saying it's trivia, not even rating a sentence? No. I disagree. SBHarris 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Beesley is still a steward and an administrator. See Wikipedia:List of administrators and m:Stewards. Active in both. Sbwoodside 21:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! I did perform a check and saw something, perhaps in the bureaucrat lists, which indicated inactivity. But it is not there now. Either it's been changed since, or I simply made a mistake. Anyway, looks like you are correct and Ms. Beesley continues to hold all relevant titles and uses their powers actively. Which is a head-scratcher to me, considering her stated reasons for resigning from the Wikimedia Foundation (what-- she thinks it's going in the wrong direction, BUT she still wants to help it go faster? What, she wants more time to work on Wikia and her other projects, BUT she has time to be bureaucrat of bureaucrats here?). But anyway, facts is facts, and these facts are as you state them. My mistake. SBHarris 21:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think even her activities as a part of the Foundation are particularly notable (how many representatives of notable companies speak as their representatives and yet would not be considered notable themselves? Lots, that's how many). Yet since we're stuck with this article (a bit of wikicruft double standards coming back to bite us) the deletion mini-controversy is something where outside notice has actually been focused on Angela Beesley qua Angela Beesley. As to the timeline, yeah, delete with extreme prejudice. --Coroebus 21:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-referential

I came over here because of the remark posted on Wikipedia:Criticism of Wikipedia. Perhaps we can make the article more self-referential: maybe Angela said something citable say about the controversy about whether to include discussion in the article about her wanting the article deleted. Or maybe we could write an article of broader public interest? Maybe about the lint we see when we gaze at our own navels? - Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello Jmabel, and welcome to Angela Beesley's article talk page. Your proposal is very interesting, and could be expanded upon further. Perhaps we can list some of her contributions to Wikipedia, such as the fact that she used to welcome a lot of new users, or that she used to do most of the admin promotions. Or maybe we could provide a list of all the barnstars and wiki-awards that she has received. We could even go further and provide a list of some of her milestone edits, such as her 1st, 100th, and 1000th edits. Together, we can make this the most exciting article yet! --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-referentiality is actually something we explicitly want to avoid, see WP:SELF. (Or maybe that's what you were getting at with your comment about belly-button lint?)

Including things like lists of her wiki-awards and first-person accounts of her behvaiour towards new users would almost certainly go against both Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:No original research, and possibly Wikipedia:Verifiability (since some the claims would rely on people's testimony), in addition to WP:SELF as I already mentioned. Deathphoenix, your enthusiasm is great, and we can, and should write about Wikipedia and Wikipedians where appropriate, but we need to be careful when writing about these topics to make sure it's done in an encyclopaedic and objective way. --Saforrest 14:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] semi-protection no longer needed?

Looks like the semi-protection was put in place because of User:Amorrow (see [9]) is he gone now? I'm not really familiar with the case but it looks like he was totally banned a few months ago. If so it would be good to get rid of the semi-protection. Sbwoodside 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public appearances section (deleted from article)

I'm just copying this deleted section into the talk page because it might be a useful reference in case anyone questions Beesley's notability as a public figure. Sbwoodside 18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With the press

[edit] At conferences

[edit] Citations from above

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/nicework/nicework_20050329.shtml
  2. ^ How and Why Wikipedia Works
  3. ^ http://www.riehle.org/computer-science/research/2006/wikisym-2006-interview.pdf
  4. ^ http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:AB1
  5. ^ http://www.ixconference.com/academic_forum.htm
  6. ^ http://molife.com.au/node/42
  7. ^ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conference_reports/FLOSS%2C_South_Africa_2005/Workshop_1
Since she has been on CNBC, would that merit an article for Ray Wert, editor of Jalopnik, who regularly appears on CNBC (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=jalopnik+cnbc&search=Search) ? (I guess my point is that I don't see how these appearances make for an argument that shows Ms. Beesley as a notable public figure.) Guroadrunner 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia bio controversy

I cut this as complete rubbish. Apart from being horribly self-referential, this bit fails the harsh verifiability requirements of WP:BLP as much as can be imagined. Wikitruth as a reliable source? Andrew Orlowski as a reliable source? What on earth? - David Gerard 11:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"What on earth?" indeed. We have here a demonstrably true claim (that Angela Beesley tried to have her bio deleted) that isn't contested by the subject of the bio. We also have a citation backing it up from a widely read IT news site. Yet still the section gets repeatedly and wholesale reverted by a variety of individuals, mostly admins, who don't stick around to justify themselves. I am intrigued that we have a new policy that The Register can't be used as a source if Andrew Orlowski is the author of an article, apparently because he's been rude about wikipedia (shock horror, how will we cope?) Presumably, having written for the Guardian, that is also no longer an acceptable source. So I'm putting the section back, come and argue your case here, I do not see anything in WP:BLP that precludes the use of the register as a source, particularly given as Angela Beesley doesn't deny the factual claim made in the article (she may deny other things said in the article, but we haven't repeated them). I'm afraid your personal dislike of Orlowski is no reason for us to accept that the Register is not a reliable source, Angela Beesley doesn't deny that she tried to get her bio deleted, and it has been commented on elsewhere (i.e. in the Register), which makes it a hell of a lot more notable than the other gushing wikicruft the article was filled with (if you don't want there to be an article at all then there are other avenues open to you). It is self-referential because it has to be, that is nature of self-referential things (cf Wikipedia), and does not violate WP:SELF. If you can't stand the wikitruth reference then delete it, Seth Finkelsetin was quoted by The Register, so that stays.

Here's the section under dispute, for future reference:

Angela Beesley has tried to have her biography on Wikipedia deleted,[1][2] saying "I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense". The Register[3] and Wikitruth[4] claim that her objections are ironic in light of the generally liberal policy of Wikipedia administrators to the accuracy and notability of biographies in Wikipedia of living people. Seth Finkelstein, who tried to have his own entry from Wikipedia removed, called it "a pretty stunning vote of no-confidence. Even at least some high-ups can't eat the dog food."[5]


"it's not uncontested if there are people contesting it, it doesn't matter that it's referenced if it's using unreliable sources, and then there's the problem that it's meta-content" from User:Thebainer when he reverted.

It is not a contested fact by Angela Beesley, because it is obviously true (i.e. just look at the deletion requests!), whether you choose to deny it is utterly irrelevant (although it would be a bit barking). The Orlowski objection is utter utter rubbish, and no one has justified rejecting him as a source other than simply asserting he's not reliable (which, as I pointed out, is just like me randomly deleting references from people I disagree with from articles, just cos I don't like them). If you think some of the other sources are unreliable, just remove them, not the whole thing, otherwise it looks like people have ulterior motives. Define meta-content, establish why this section is it, and refer me to the relevant policy forbidding it. Currently this article (about someone that is practically a nobody) refers to one of the few events in Ms Beesley's bio where anyone has referred to her as a person (as opposed to a spokesperson for wikipedia). --Coroebus 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Are people here trying to 'defend' Angela Beesley through some sort of misguided apprehension that she'll be 'hurt' by reference to this, or is it yet more sad wikipedia intolerance to anything that might even hint at criticism? I'm not sure what is sadder. --Coroebus 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored aneven more cut down version, no wikitruth, no unnecesary self-referentiality, simply stating universally agreed facts - she tried to have her bio deleted (including quote and link to her saying it), the register thought that was ironic (including link) and the quote from Finkelstein that the Register quoted (including link to original statement):

[edit] Wikipedia biography controversy

Angela Beesley has tried to have her Wikipedia biography deleted saying "I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense" [6]. The Register[7] highlighted her objections as ironic, quoting Seth Finkelstein, who tried to have his own entry from Wikipedia removed, calling it "a pretty stunning vote of no-confidence. Even at least some high-ups can't eat the dog food."[8]

What more is there to object to? The Orlowski objection is utterly unnacceptable, and simply boils down to us arguing we don't like him because he criticises wikipedia, which is frankly utterly irrelevant to the acceptability of a source, and very nicely reinforces the objections of wikipedia's critics. The other objection is that somehow this event and criticism is "not notable", which seems a little rich given we talk about where this woman went to university - if you think she is not notable then list it as an AfD - but this is one of the few even marginally notable aspects of Angela Beesley's life. --Coroebus 10:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check, you'll find the latest one had something to do with baseballs. —vivacissamamente 11:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe inside baseball is a colloquialism, and in this case essentially boils down to "nn". As I've said, it's funny that the bar for wikicruft notability is set so low, when criticisms of wikipedia have it set so much higher. --Coroebus 11:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this right, uncritical internal wikipedia stuff with no external cites must be kept, but critical external stuff about wikipedia with cites must be deleted? --Coroebus 13:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes - voicing your opinion on an internal AfD discussion is completely useless information to the average person. Resigning from the board of a large non-profit organization, because of conflict and having your endorsed candidate win is not. This egotistic desire to include in Wikipedia stuff where Wikipedia is mentioned in the news is not encyclopedic with few exceptions, notably the Seigenthaler controversy.
Yet you don't seem to be able to find any external sources to back up what you regard as notable, but external sources can be found for what you regard as non notable. It is almost as if your personal view of what is and is not notable is wrong.
Additionally, that the Register is the article on this supports its completely non-notablity 1) the info you want to quote is not even the focus of the article 2) the Register is barely above www.blogger.com as a credible source, and 3) the paragraph referenced includes unsubstantiated claims (resignation reason). --Trödel 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
(1) The register article is not completely about Angela Beesley, rather about the problems in the innacuracy of wikipedia articles, and yet still it is better than the non-existent coverage of her supporting her ex-boyfriend for a job she resigned from. (2) why yes, a widely read tech news site is indeed the same as a blog, and wikipedia is as reliable as Encyclopedia Dramatica. (3) what does the presence or absence of claims that we don't repeat have to do with anything? We use it as a source for things we know to be true (i.e. she resigned, they criticised, Finkelstein moaned). What kind of new levels of WP:OR do we reach if we go about trying to find claims in sources that we think are wrong and then rejecting those sources on the basis of our own beliefs? --Coroebus 15:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
And then citing WP:V as your justification for your revert, removing the resignation stuff (which I think we all acknowledge is TRUE) whilst adding back in unsourced internal wikipedia info about backing Eloquence for her old position, that is just too ironic. --Coroebus 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping show taht The Register is completely unreliable - with no journalistic standards for fact-checking. --Trödel 15:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You do realise that what you have just said has no logical connection with my comments don't you? --Coroebus 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the para yet again. You have yet to overcome the key objection that mentioning the AfD debate is self-referential: it's about things which happened entirely on Wikipedia. Please see my comments above as to the distinction between things on Wikipedia which are important to the outside world and things which are not. The criterion is external attention. Compare the external attention here (non-notable tech blogger Seth Finkelstein's opinion) with the attention given to really notable internal matters, such as John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Come back when the AfD turns up on CNN, BBC News and USA Today, in an article written by an actual journalist. --bainer (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The self-referential argument is meaningless in this context. We're clearly not talking about WP:SELF here:

Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project, such as: This Wikipedia article discusses ... Free content projects, such as this website ... While Wikipedia is not a dictionary, ... (in an article about a certain term) Warning: Wikipedia contains spoilers (see Wikipedia:Spoiler warning for alternative text) ...

Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia. If, in this framework, you link from an article to a Wikipedia page outside the main namespace, use external link style to allow the link to work also in a site with a copy of the main namespace content. The following are some examples where such links can be useful: Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article, for example: John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy Articles about prominent people involved in Wikipedia, for example: Jimbo Wales Articles about Wikipedia Articles where Wikipedia is illustrative of the subject, for example: online community, encyclopedia Articles where it is likely the reader actually wants a Wikipedia policy article or similar, such as userbox

So the self-referential argument is simply another way of saying that the bio deletion business is not a notable event in the life of Angela Beesley (as wikipedia biography subject - the notable events in her personal life are not necessarily our business). It is utterly disingenuous to argue that notability in this case must be judged to be comparable with Seigenthaler because the rest of the bio fails to meet that standard (especially see this switch). I think I'll list the article for deletion again, this time highlighting not just the obvious non-notability of Angela Beesley, but also the explict double standards in policing what is and isn't in the article, it is currently utterly unworkable --Coroebus 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah well, that didn't work. Back to square one. --Coroebus 17:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that a former three-year member of Wikipedia's Board of Trustees advocated the deletion of her own biography entry, on the grounds it was "full of nonsense," is an important part of her biography (and an extremely pointed repudiation of the Wikipedia concept). The actions taken within Wikipedia by leaders like Beesley and Wales should be treated differently -- in terms of judging whether they belong in the encyclopedia -- than the actions others take here. The exclusion of this fact appears like protective bias to keep Wikipedia from looking bad. Rcade 14:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, you're missing the point: it's not up to us, when considering internal Wikipedia matters, to determine what is and is not notable; we leave that to the outside world. The AfD has not been subject to sufficient external attention to warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Compare with, say, John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy or Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia for examples of external attention to internal matters warranting inclusion.
Secondly, your argument as to why it is notable is fallacious; if you would pay attention to all of what she said, you would learn that Angela's reason for nominating the article was that she had resigned from the board, and since the only clear reason for ever keeping the article was because the community thinks it's nice having articles about the current board members, there was no longer any reason for keeping the article. That said, both your opinion and mine are of no consequence, since what must be considered here is external judgment. --bainer (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion that Beasley is in Wikipedia only because "the community thinks it's nice having articles about the current board members" is a pretty odd defense of excluding information from a board member's bio that has been reported in The Guardian. Silly me; I thought she was in the encyclopedia because she was notable. Rcade 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You're also missing the point that I've listed hundreds of articles on VfD/AfD, making this far less relevant than it would be if that were my only edit on Wikipedia. Angela. 13:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm on board with the editors making the argument that Angela's AfD self-nomination is noteworthy enough to be included in her bio. As others have already mentioned above, the episode has been reported in mass market media, including the Guardian, which is a credible source. It's now part of history and well-publicized. Reading this discussion page shows that most, if not all of the editors, have made this addition to the article in good faith, and not anonymously. Is it true that it's mainly administrators who keep deleting mention of the episode? If so, why? Cla68 06:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I've actually stopped listing it since the article has been cut down sufficiently that adding it would probably give undue weight. --Coroebus 09:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There's always an argument that can be made why not to include something or why to delete something. Undue weight is as good as any. If you want to delete it, I won't fight it. Cla68 10:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, the following is the passage that some editors feel strongly shouldn't be included:

"In July, 2006, she self-nominated her Wikipedia biography for deletion from Wikipedia, stating,

“ I'm sick of this article being trolled. It's full of lies and nonsense. My justification for making a third nomination is that my circumstances have changed significantly since the last AfDs - I have resigned from the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. Given that this was previously kept on the grounds I was on that Board, there is no longer any reason for this page to be kept. This has already been deleted on the French and German Wikipedias.[9] ”

However, the consensus of Wikipedia editors was for the article to be retained. This episode has been used by some to question Wikipedia's reliability, since it appears that Beesley, formerly one of Wikipedia's most public advocates, was giving the site a no-confidence vote on the entry about hersefl.[10]

Cla68 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons

It's completely false to say I cited the deterioration of collaboration as the reason for my resignation. That was a tiny part of the problem and I never even said it was a reason for my resignation - I just happened to mention in one email to foundation-l after Wikizine had already announced my resignation. The main problems were not cited in that foundation-l post so please stop trying to guess what my reasons were. Angela. 03:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Angela, the original article said the reasons were "unspecified" and when I checked that was clearly contradicted by what you'd written in your email to foudation-l announcing yor resignation, so I corrected the inaccurate claim that you hadn't given reasons. That is, I was under the impression based on your email that your position was being misrepresented.

Your email to foundation-l announcing your resignation included two bits of text that could describe reasons:

  • "It's been a great two years and I've enjoyed the role, but the collaborative consensus-based nature Wikimedia had before the start of this year continues to deteriorate and it's no longer an environment I can work effectively in"
  • "I would prefer to be involved in Wikimedia from a different angle rather than focusing my attention on Board matters"

I'm sorry if you didn't like it that I believed the reasons you gave were your real reasons but that's what happened. Do you have other cites that would more completely represent the reasons for your resignation and place those reasons in better context? I'm very interested in not misrepresenting your reasons but they appeared clear from your official resignation announcement email. I'd welcome any clarification you can offer. Perhaps "personal reasons" not described in this edit would be the most significant reason? Jamesday 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The "events and tendancies" thing that you removed from the article was closer to the truth, but that was purposefully unspecific. Those close to the Foundation know what I mean. There's no need for a Wikipedia article to know though. Angela. 02:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I put the full quote from the email in so it should best represent what she said. --Coroebus 18:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classed as "Stub", and "low importance"

As a member of the Wiki Biography Project, I just assessed this as stub, and the subject as of low importance. If there was a classification of "no importance", I would have chosen that. Frankly, I'm shocked and amazed that this is being kept on Wiki, and I think it makes Wikipedia look foolish to include it. Nobody outside of the cult of Wikipedia would consider her notable, and all of the overruled nominations for deletion smack of double standard. My dry cleaner is as notable as Ms. Beesley is, and I am certain that if I wrote a biography of her, it would be deleted in a heartbeat. Seeing this page has done nothing but increase my cynicism regarding Wikipedia. Jeffpw 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If she is the (c)founder of a company, a writer, and has received press coverage, she is notable. That's Wikipedia criteria of inclusion for 'ya. Sfacets 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree it has increased my cynicism of Wikipedia also. With each passing day this place seems to implode on itself with the constant bickering about what is right and wrong regarding articles etc. Apparently peoples rights aren't worth a damn here. She is NOT notable nowadays, delete her already and give her some peace. Just because she's not a cult of Wiki nerd doesn't mean she deserves this kind of treatment. In fact, this insane cult mentality of Wiki is exactly why it is doomed to fail eventually.

[edit] Deletion Request

The following is the deletion request, someone keeps deleting the tag off the article without discussing it. Shameful imo.

Almost empty stub of a person who is no longer a member of wiki development team. Hardly notable enough to warrant an encylopedic entry, assuming this is supposed to be an encyclopedia still. Also, they have requested multiple times for the removal of this. Surely their personal liberty and right to privacy overrides some socialistic ideal to share the worlds information at the expense of everything else. WHOEVER KEEPS REMOVING THIS WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT IS VIOLATING WIKI TOS. DISCUSS THIS DELETION REQUEST AND VOTE, DON'T SWEEP IT UNDER THE CARPET. This kind of behaviour demonstrates clearly why wiki fails on so many levels.

Please discuss this properly before voting. Bringing some credibility back into wiki would be a nice move in the right direction.

The artilce has already survived numerous deletion requests. Unless you provide more serious arguments than privacy concerns, any further discussion is considered to be trolling. Angela is still a respected person and more than satisfies the guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (people). `'mikkanarxi 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a legitimate point I raised. This is exactly where wikipedia falls down. You feel your opinion is more valued since you are some admin or whatever. And further discussion is trolling? Is this the way you go about silencing people with differing opinions, by threatening them that they are trolling or causing trouble if they don't agree with you? On a final note, if privacy isn't a legit concern in your opinion, would you care to create a wiki entry for yourself listing your DOB, vitals, picture, home town etc? It's a little different when it's about you isn't it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.10.83.103 (talk • contribs).
We are writing encyclopedia here. If you have opinions to vent, there are plenty places for chat on 'web. About privacy: privacy is a legit concern in wikipedia. Please look at the top of this page. `'mikkanarxi 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, once an article survives one or two deletion votes all subsequent votes are rapidly closed down. --Coroebus 19:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless new significant arguments are presented. If it were otherwise we'd all been discussing deletion of most articles all day long rather than writing new artiles. There are plenty of trolls who like to post, eg., George Bush for deletion. `'mikkanarxi 04:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason for bad decisions made in the past to be irrevocably set in stone, it is better to undo previous mistakes, particularly when the basis for the original shaky rationale has been undermined by recent events in this case (i.e. she resigned). This article is wikicruft, pure and simple, and highlights the laughable hypocrisy of wikipedia rather nicely. --Coroebus 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
For someone so important to Wikipedia, this article should not only stay, but be flashed out more. Kind of short for such an important person. A305w 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Bramlet

Bramlet, can you explain why you're keen on adding dob? We're supposed to exercise caution with dobs in BLPs (see WP:BLP), and we can't use Wikipedia as a source for anything, so the edit violates WP:NOR and WP:V. Also, I don't see that it adds anything substantive to the bio overall. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is why you're keen on keeping it out. A dob is a substantive part of any bio. I haven't seen that Angela has explicitly said she considers the dob private, and we're not systematically removing birth dates from articles about marginally notable people, do we? As I've said before in an edit summary, it is not using "Wikipedia" as a source, because "Wikipedia" officially is not a publication anyway. Things on Wikipedia are "published" by the respective editors. The reason Wikipedia articles per se are not acceptable sources is that anyone can edit them, and their contents change all the time. However, specific edits are fixed and have one author. The reason we can't usually use diffs either is that those authors are usually non-notable persons and thus not reliable sources. However, public persons notable enough to have their own articles are generally reliable sources about their own birth data. No doubt many biographies on Wikipedia include birth dates which come from the person's own website. And then it doesn't matter where a person publishes her own birth date. A private website is as good as Wikipedia, provided that the identity of the person is not in doubt. But in this case we can be sure that User:Angela is indeed the subject of this article, and she has published this data. The links are in the article, it is directly verifiable for everyone. Nor does it violate NOR if you take an information directly from a reliable source. It would be NOR if you somehow got hold of her birth certificate, or got the information by private communication. But she published it herself and it's on record for everyone to see. Bramlet Abercrombie 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No. You are simply wrong. You need to find a published source for her date of birth. If you know of other unsourced date of births and want to remove them, go ahead. But it's the policy here that if an edit is challenged, you need to provide a source for it to reinstate it. You haven't, so please don't reinstate it. Grace Note 04:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a published source. Self-published by Angela, which is acceptable for a non-contentious fact like this. Surely she knows her own birth date better than anyone else, and there's no reason to assume she would have faked it. Why should this not be good enough? Bramlet Abercrombie 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. For obvious reasons, Wikipedia should not be used as a source anywhere for anything. Grace Note 02:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what those "obvious reasons" are, taking into consideration my specific explanations above? Bramlet Abercrombie 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this pretty much covers it. Grace Note 07:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It says "Wikis ... are not reliable sources, because the content is self-published, anyone can edit them, and the current version of an article may change at any time." I have addressed those very points above. The last two points don't apply to fixed diffs, and while self-published content is not reliable for most things, it certainly is adequate for a person's own birth date. If, say, a newspaper were publishing her birth date, it would have obtained it simply by asking her without requiring documentary proof. So can you just explain in practical terms why this would be more reliable than directly using her self-published date? Bramlet Abercrombie 12:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is more relevant: "When writing about Usenet itself, or other Usenet-related topics such as particular personalities or Usenet memes, Usenet posts may be acceptable as a source.", where it would seem Wikipedia as collaborative community should be treated essentially the same as Usenet. The wiki section: "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not reliable sources, because the content is self-published, anyone can edit them, and the current version of an article may change at any time." is not relevant here as it is not information in a Wikipedia article we're talking about but an individual's actions on Wikipedia the collaborative community (for instance, it is not true that the history of a user's contributions can be altered by anyone or changed at any time - i.e. it is not a wiki, even though the articles are). However, as I'm sure you are aware by now, however bizarre the interpretation of the written word, if it supports their argument then the rules are a policy set in stone, but if they support your argument you are simply wikilawyering. --Coroebus 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it's simply churlish to point out that there is no policy that supports Bramlet in any way, shape or form. Grace Note 07:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitary section break 1

Bramlet, you have no way of establishing that the person who made the edit really was Angela that wouldn't involve original research. (Newspapers do the research for us; see how that works?) Now, I really enjoy playing policies with wikilawyers but the bottom line is no source, no birthdate, and you don't have a source.

It's original research that User:Angela is Angela Beesley? If that isn't the most ridiculous wikilawyering argument I don't know what is. All "research" you have to do is, for example (and there are countless other ways to do it), to look at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Angela - the official foundation site which can not be edited by anyone - which identifies Angela Beesley with en:User:Angela. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you show me the reputable source that has looked at that page and posted the identification you describe? If you cannot, you are indulging in original research, presenting your own thesis. That is not permitted here, no matter how "obvious" the outcome of the research seems to you. Grace Note 04:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Since when is directly taking a fact from a source "original research" or "presenting a thesis"? You can describe any edit as original research by that logic. That User:Angela is Angela Beesley is an obvious fact, it's neither original nor research. Bramlet Abercrombie 17:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When that source is not a reliable source. Of course if Angela said her birthdate on her official website, it may be considered a reliable source. --wL<speak·check·chill> (Posted before Lbmixpro was renamed to WikiLeon) 03:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference? Either way the source is Angela herself. Either she is a reliable source for her birth date or not. Bramlet Abercrombie 11:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
How is my own website meant to be a reliable source? My birthdate has been on my LiveJournal since this article tried to cite that as a source, so perhaps the article should state I was born Christmas day 1902. As I've just read on talk:wikia, the policy is "verifiability, not truth", even when the sourced information is clearly ridiculous. Angela. 13:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indents) Angela, I've always followed this wording of the reliable source guideline about self published sources. Although I'm not sure if WikiAngela is relevant to the self-publisher's notability, I know that there's info there that is not contentious; Since no one is disagreeing with what you write, not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing, because you don't show more than what you really are, and that most of it is about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject.I hope I have interpreted it correctly, since I have built many good articles using that particular view in mind. --wL<speak·check·chill> 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are a reliable source when there's no particular reason for doubt. Hence, your later jokes can be ignored, but your originally given dates were obviously serious. Bramlet Abercrombie 15:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether the meta site is a reliable source, just wanted to point out that Angela herself has given her blessing for it to be included (see question above in August 2006). Again, I'm not saying we should ignore other concerns, I just wanted to point this out 203.109.240.93 15:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corruption and transparency in Wikimedia projects

User:SlimVirgin, (in violation with Wikipedia policies?) deleted the following and marked her deletions as minor.

In February 2007 as member of the ComCom she blocked questions regarding the handling of corruption and transparency within Wikimedia Foundation projects. [11]

This is an encyclopaedia article, and not a soapbox for you to advance your agenda. --bainer (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you violated Help:Minor_edit#When_to_mark_an_edit_as_minor. Please respect policies and don't run your own agenda. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you're obviously POV pushing and have a blatant conflict of interest. When a publishing house rejects my book, I don't get to go write snooty little notes on the article about them. If you have an argument with somebody, take it up with them personally -- using their article as an attack platform is cowardly and doesn't reflect well on you or the wiki. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to mix something here. The ones that on purpose delete well sourced facts seem to be POV pushing. Why does this fact in your opinion not belong here? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Tobias Conradi is blocked from Meta and a number of other wikis for consistently spamming his rants on inappropriate pages. He's apparently upset that I deleted his rant from the Communications Committee page since it had nothing whatsoever to do with that committee. It was reverted by many different people until he was finally blocked.[10] Angela. 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Am I the only one who realizes that Wikis are not reliable sources? Based on the info above from Angela, I think Tobias has an axe to grind with Angela. --wL<speak·check·chill> 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate again

The register of births and deaths is not an acceptable source for Ms Beesley's birthdate for the reason that it confirms only that an Angela Beesley was born in the year given. Please find a source that gives this Angela Beesley's birthdate. Grace Note 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is descending into sophistry. We've got two sources for that birthdate now, one a "self-published" source ([11]) and one now from an independent source. Are you proposing that two different Angela Beesleys were born on August 3, 1977 in Norwich, England? What is the point of such nitpickery? Bryan Derksen 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You need a reliable secondary source. The register of births and deaths is a primary source. Also, the current version of Wikipedia:Wikipedians by birthday does not include that date. Angela. 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Bryan, I am not proposing anything. To do so would constitute original research. There is no connection between the register of births and deaths and the "Angela Beesley" we are talking about here. Provide one and you can include it. Also, anyone can add a date to a Wikipedia page. That's a feature, not a bug, but it's one of the reasons Wikipedia is a very poor source. Grace Note 02:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I feel we should then include the fact that a "Angela Beesley" married a "Brian Peppers". Not that it is this Angela or the famous Brian. BTW, this is WP:OFFICE. - Occobian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.75.233.122 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
I see the sarcasm now. Plain and simple... Are the dates in the right context? Could it refer to this Angela, or another? Would that registry be a first source? BTW it's not WP:OFFICE, it's WP:BLP. --wL<speak·check> 17:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate

The rules are simple and I don't see any reason not to follow them here. We do not include statements about people unless we can source them to a reliable source. This should particularly be the case if the person involved does not want information to appear. We are not investigative journalists, trying to uncover uncomfortable truths. Grace Note 01:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get why this project should treat articles about people differently based on those people's preferences. Just treat all articles equally? I'm getting tearied eyed just thinking about what a wonderful world it could be :) J/K --Tom 18:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Tom, could you post your sources here, please? The one in the article didn't look very reliable and they may have copied it from us anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Slim, sure, no problem. [12] Do we consider this site a reliable source? Anyways, cheers! --Tom 18:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That was the one that was in the article. We need a more reliable source than that, but even with one, there's no need for this to be included, and BLP advises against where there are objections. I think we should just let this be. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It's as reliable as the IMDB. --wL<speak·check> 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
nndb uses Wikipedia as a source so it's obviously not reliable. There's really no reason to put my date of birth here. Please see the policy at WP:LIVING#Privacy of birthdays. Angela. 00:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine, lets just go with the year of birth, 1977, ok? Thanks, --Tom 12:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for it? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of sites mention here current age as 29, but nothing more concrete. I guess we'll leave for now. Thanks Slim, --Tom 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom, my pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet entrepreneur

I added that fact tag to this. I read some of the sources and do not see this mentioned. Is there a link that calls her this? Thanks, --Tom 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed that material rather than add it "ipso defacto" (is that pig latin :) ) --Tom 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, there are reliable sources for this (CNN, The Times), but then there are sources to say I live in Sydney and I'm the founder of Wikipedia, so don't believe everything the media says. ;) Angela. 19:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw you mentioned as an "internet entrepreneur" in the second article but must have missed it in the first. I could live with adding this back, but I actually prefer the way it is now. I gets right to the point of what you did to be notable and does not label you. Anyways, thanks for the response and like I said, no biggie if folks want to add it back in I guess. Cheers --Tom 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Does anyone know how to fix the infobox? Not having a DOB makes it look as though we are suggesting Angela may have been created rather than born. If not, I think we should just bin it. The picture could stand alone, no? Grace Note 06:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Done. Gary Kirk [Talk] 08:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's much better without the box. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False statements about ODP

This edit is false. Follow the link that is supposedly the source and you'll see I said no such thing. "Having worked on the more rigidly structured Open Directory Project..." is what the journalist said, not what I said. The article doesn't mention anything about ODP being centralized (it isn't). And the article shouldn't be written in American English anyway. The whole section is really quite irrelevant considering how little time I spent on the Open Directory Project. I didn't even make enough edits to become a "meta" (their equivalent to an admin). Angela. 23:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it based on the above comments. It now says you found it 'much more closed and hierarchical' - words taken directly from the quotations in the article. I'm ambivalent on whether that statement is notable enough to be mentioned at all, but if it is at least this version is better. Terraxos 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, having followed the recent AfD (a lapse in judgement on my part), I'd say it isn't really that relevant. All it does is provide a reason to refer to the SMH article. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

By Fax too.

Dear Sirs, A group of users (friends) of Portuguese Wikipédia bring more illiberal policies regarding an non free wikipédia without a preoccupation with a environmental and social education.

This group of users (always the same) and some administrators propose and vote systematically to erase some pages with a total absence of knowledge about the subject, some of the articles with a high importance to the community. They have a chain of contacts to promote their vote and their contacts (friends) vote without common sense, reasoning, good judgment, brains or sagacity; They vote against the person and not against the article.

Less obvious for know, but perhaps as consequential over the long term, is a less participation of some users who TRY CONTRIBUTE to this projects with articles.

Because of this behavior from this group, I decide do not agree with their conduct and I write my point of view in there discussion pages (with total education)

I have been blocked for suspicion of being a sock puppet after a checkuser. I know I am not a sockpuppet, so is impossible the checkuser be positive.

A several of times I and other users asked for a checkuser to my account, always reject for the "group of users". But know, the "group of users" decide make the "checkuser", it is strange and uncommon. After reject my checkuser proposal, after 2 days the ask a "checkuser"? They admit in their discussion pages, they make a checkuser and the checkuser was negative… Know is positive. Is impossible. I know that.

All I ask to wikimédia foundation is that an administrator check the merits of the block. Please, verify the checkuser. Send me the results by email, because is impossible this result.

I think these groups (with administrators) are trying making a fraud to eliminate my participation.

Put yourself in my shoes and imagine the frustration.

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Rightsideclub – The other user

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Rui_Resende – Me

http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CheckUser/Pedidos_de_verifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o&oldid=7251137 – The checkuser rejected by "the group of users"

http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CheckUser/Pedidos_de_verifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o&oldid=7309116 – The same checkuser approved by "the group of users".

Kind regards,

Rui Resende —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.79.92 (talk) 21:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Residence

I've never lived in London. I don't know why the infobox says that. The open directory project thing in this article is still bizarre and irrelevant. I did not "contrast my work with Wikis to my earlier work with the "Open Directory Project". It was a comment in response to an odd question in one of dozens of interviews and it makes no sense to pick out this comment for the article. I was barely involved in that project. Angela. 13:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I pity you Angela, these nerds will never leave you be. Wiki WILL crash and burn eventually, as soon as they post too much stuff about politicians and other powerful people who don't like the publicity. It's only still afloat because it's currently being use to their advantage to slander their opposition. Once it turns on them it's dead in the water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.118.79 (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Surely the fact that this article is puportedly full of inaccuracies and lies just summarises everything that is wrong with Wikipedia? If this how one of the Wiki GodKings get treated, what hope is there for an article that actually has merit and value? Unike this poor woman. 82.109.66.148 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] date of birth

I have found a published source with her date of birth, from a good source too, and I am wondering if it is ok to add it? I can scan the source and upload it if I need to, but I just want to be sure that it is the right thing to do. Ms Beesley is the business partner of the "owner" of Wikipedia so I do no really want to do anything that will cause the wrath of the higher ups. JayKeaton (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that "the right thing to do", whatever it is, should be utterly independent of "the wrath of the higher ups". You might want to consider one guideline: WP:NPF#People_who_are_relatively_unknown. — Matt Crypto 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, and WP:NPF#Privacy_of_birthdays, of course ;-) — Matt Crypto 19:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Both the [simple english version] and [Portugues version] have her date of birth. I wont say if it is the same as the magazine printed or not, but surely that must be precedent? JayKeaton (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much store by that; different projects have different guidelines. — Matt Crypto 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
True true, other wikipedia projects seem to be doing their own thing sometimes, like they are a totally different culture completely. Anyway this magazine is a sort of prominent Sydney publication and although the article is only about a page long but it is pretty much about Angie. They have taken an interest in her because it was a technology section and the magazine claims that she has been in Sydney, or in Australia anyway, for almost two years. It mentions her date of birth, the work she has done for Wikipedia and some info about her life in Australia. I have never been to Sydney myself, but this publication is available all over Australia. I don't normally read it, but I just randomly picked it up from the "Australia" pile of reading material on a flight to Singapore. The reason I am taking an interest is because a bio, especially a bio about someone as prominant in the technology world like Angie, seems a bit strange not having a date of birth next to her name in brackets. It makes the article look incomplete, like we aren't doing our job properly, at least not as good as the Australian media. JayKeaton (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering I've never told any magazine my date of birth, I can only imagine their source for that was Wikipedia! Doesn't sound too reliable. Angela. 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh hello ^_^ It is sort of cool having the subject of a bio around, it would be like George Lucas talking on his talk page, the fans would go wild. Anyway, yes the piece wasn't an interview, it was more of a general interest investigative article. And they just might have used Wikipedia as a source because when you write about a key figure of Wikipedia then Wikipedia might be an obvious place to start. No sources were listed though. There was a photo, but the only thing it had was "mbn" in brackets under it in small writing. JayKeaton (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's quite amazing how many people turn up to this talk page to comment on my date of birth yet seem completely blind to my comments above about inancuracies in the article. :( Angela. 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You know Angela, maybe for the solution is for you to point us to a correct source to cite, much as Jimbo's bio does? That might be a constructive way to help correct inaccuracies. VanTucky talk 16:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The source is not good. It is a beta test site, and there is no indication of fact checking. I have removed the DOB. If Angela wishes to publish her year of birth (the exact date could be used for identity theft and serves no real purpose), she can do so and we can cite her blog or wiki as a primary source for this non-controversial information. - Jehochman Talk 16:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is date of birth about this person important for an encyclopedia? -- West Goshen Guy (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Dream Denied

Why is person fighting tooth and nail to put anything about herself on her page? I mean, your notable, get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.149.53 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a junior university student (mathematics/computer engineering majors, irrelevent to this discussion), interested in this because of an outside reference. It seems ridiculous to me to say that a somewhat major person in this encyclopedia's history making several attempts at deleting her own article is not something that anyone outside of the wikipedia community would be interested in. I also think that it is most certainly noteworthy that she made another attempt immediately after resigning. Of course we shouldn't make assumptions based on this coincidince, but saying there is no reason to consider this suspicious, is ludicrous. That idea is not a truth or lie, it's simply a hypothesis based on the confirmed facts on hand, & considering there are so many places online where I can read about this suggestion, why should it just be discarded entirely because we're not all convinced that the sources are reliable? They don't have to be all that reliable as a source of facts if we're noting their contributions to the article as opinion (or hypothesis in this case, under these circumstances essentially the same thing in my mind) & not fact. The prevalence of this is enough to make it a noteworthy addition. The fact that you have kept this out of the article has made me lose a lot of (somewhat unfounded) faith in wikipedia. That's not to say I had thought it was completely reliable (wouldn't be interested in this event were that the case), but still I had a lot more confidence in it beforehand. The "wikitruth" article linked to (had never heard of the site beforehand) is a lot better than this one despite being opinionated; it details the story around her that people are most likely visiting the page to read up on, & it does it correctly in that it provides citations so we can judge for ourselves how reasonable we think the article is (granted I've only looked at a couple of those citations so far). And of all the things to omit, why a proposition that may sway the minds of those under the illusion that wikipedia is infallible? If they read that & accept it as fact, well, then they haven't learned their lesson at all. -† —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.242.202 (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NNDB

NNDB uses Wikipedia as a source. Using them as a source in this article is rather circular. Angela. 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the information accurate or inaccurate? Can you point to a more reliable source? Jehochman Talk 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There isn't any other source. That's how I know they got it from here. Angela. 02:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems circular. Removed. Jehochman Talk 03:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what happened. It's the other way around. I inserted some basic bio info using the data I found in NNDB. NNDB didn't use us as a source; I'm restoring the data. -- Taku (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't as you have no consensus to restore the information, whose removal I fully support. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
But as I explained, there is no need for the removal in the first place. There is nothing wrong with correcting a mistake. -- Taku (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Any suspect information must be removed immediately from a WP:BLP. NNDB does not employ reporters, to the best of my knowledge. If NNDB found this info elsewhere, please find the original source. Don't be in a rush to restore suspect information. Jehochman Talk 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't think this information was suspect. (That's why I undid the edit because I thought that's a simple misunderstanding.) NNDB didn't use Wikipedia as a source; that's for sure. Also, NNDB is usually used as a source for many other bio articles. To my knowledge, NNDB has editors who collection information and fact-check them. (Not sure why you are paranoid.) Are you suggesting we stop citing NNDB, contrary to the current practice? -- Taku (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, stop citing them if they are not reliable, especially when the subject of an article complains. Can you link to the byline with the name of the reporter who compiled this information? Can you link to the editorial policies and staff of NNDB so we can tell if they do fact checking? How did NNDB discover this information? What was their source? How do you know they didn't use Wikipedia as a source? Jehochman Talk 04:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are unreliable, of course. But that's not the consensus the community currently has. NNDB has been used as a reliable source in Wikipedia. (By the way, they didn't use Wikipedia because, as I said above, I took the information there. NNDB had the information when Wikipedia didn't have it. It's just a very simple logic.) Finally, what subjects have to say about their articles is irrelevant because they are not reliable sources. -- Taku (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That isn't true. Luckily both Wikipedia and NNDB provide a record of when an entry was added. Wikipedia had this content first. Angela. 05:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what subjects have to say is very important. If a subject challenges info as unreliable, the info must be removed immediately, unless it can be conclusively be demonstrated to be reliable. I have asked for links to the origin of the information, the name of the reporter, or the editorial policies if NNDB that show what kind of fact checking they do. Nobody has provided any evidence of reliability. Subjects can be reliable sources for non-controversial information about themselves, such as age or other personal details, if they publish that info somewhere outside Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 04:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't she mistaken? She thought NNDB used Wikipedia, which was not the case. Also, yes, I do agree that primary sources (e.g., subjects themselves) can be reliable sources. But it is wrong to remove the information solely because the subject complained. A biography article in an encyclopedia can and should contain information regardless of the liking of the subject to that information. -- Taku (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Taku - you don't seem to understand that NNDB could only have got this information from an old version of this article. They added their entry in late 2006, probably based on this revision. That was long before you added it a few days ago. Angela. 05:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:BLPN#NNDB Notable Names Database and Talk:NNDB. It's clear they use Wikipedia as a source. I'm amazed anyone could consider this reliable. Is there actually any reason not to remove all references to this source? Angela. 05:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a huge gap between "NNDB contains some information that first appeared in Wikipedia" and "clearly NNDB uses Wikipedia as a source". Anyway, no, I didn't check the history. I now agree that it is possible that the information was lifted from here. But I don't agree that NNDB cannot be used as a reliable source for some non-controversial bio info like birth date and place. This is different from that NNDB is not reliable for information like ethnicity or some other possibly controversial information. The point is that the reliability is relative. The incredible the claims are, the reliable or more numerous the sources for the claim need to be. Additionally, how the use of NNDB could be any different from that of, say, IMDB. IMDB doesn't have bylines. They don't tell their information source, as far as I know. If we were to stop citing NNDB at all (which is contrary to our current practice as noted above), that would not be consistent with our use of IMDB. -- Taku (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Woah, wasn't expecting this much discussion here, this article has been pretty slow for the past 6 months. But I see that Angela herself is here again and she is questioning the accuracy of the information. But should she be in the best position to tell us if the information is accurate or not? JayKeaton (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If Angela was asking to add unsourced info on her word that would not be relaible but as she is trying to get it removed, and given her arguemtns, we simply have no justification to allow that info to remain. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand that her word here is not good enough, but it would still give us a fair idea of what we are dealing with. JayKeaton (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm questioning the use of a highly dubious source. That has nothing to do with the information, but you shouldn't be citing NNDB and giving the fact it's sourced as a reason to keep it when the source is actually an old revision of this article. If you so much want the info in there, why not put it there with {{unsourced}} after it or cite something like Memory Alpha which at least people can see is an editable wiki and therefore not to be trusted? The NNDB citation makes the information seem more accurate than it really is because readers don't understand that the source is faulty. Angela. 02:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -