Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:19, 26 February 2007

Archives

• Archive 1 (August 17, 2005 to September 26, 2005): topics included welcoming, various VfDs/AfDs, GordonWatts' RfA, and a number of smaller items.
• Archive 2 (September 27, 2005 to October 5/6, 2005): topics included AfDs, a conversation with an IP regarding a vandalism warning, {{unsigned}} templates, and Snowspinner's RfC (about AfD deletions).
• Archive 3 (October 6, 2005 to October 23, 2005): topics included responses to Snowspinner's RfC, the word "Smerge," RfAs and CheckUser.
• Archive 4 (October 24, 2005 to November 22, 2005): topics included a misunderstanding over humor, some RfAs, some templates, and work on the USA PATRIOT Act (specifically the titles), not to mention everything else.
• Archive 5 (November 23, 2005 to December 21/22, 2005): topics included my leaving, coming back, a wee bit on the PATRIOT Act, bits due to RC patrol, some RFAs, and some insults.
• Archive 6 (December 22, 2005 to April 27, 2006): topics included WP:SEMI, some vandalfighting bits, my travels, miscellaneous article things, converting articles to cite.php, my namechange, and other such tasty foodstuffs.
• Archive 7 (April 27/8, 2006 to June 3, 2006): topics included my RfA, WP:ABUSE stuffs, a lengthy discussion about the meaning of patent nonsense, and a number of deletions and blocks.
• Archive 8 (June 4, 2006 to November 25, 2006): topics included Alkivar's incivility and not responding to his talk page, my first barnstar (!), SuggestBot's, well, suggestions, Misplaced Pages:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, some blocks, and more.

User re-appears

Hi, the user you blocked yesterday has re-appeard with a new account User:Wilhelm Jagr Klintonenberg and has made the following comment . It gives good indication that they have not changed their tone. Should they also be blocked? (I ask because I am trying to come to grips with preventative blocking and indef bans). Thanks, Localzuk 18:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him as a sockpuppet. He'll probably create another one, and as long as he's civil with that one, then that's fine. If he isn't, though, then that one'll also wind up blocked. That's just sort of how it goes... it's too bad, really, since all he needs to do is behave with courtesy. Ah, well. Let me know if anything else happens and I'll take a look at it. Snoutwood (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rigo 23

I took the liberty of moving the Ricardo Gouveia article to Rigo 23, as the artist has always used variations on the name "Rigo" professionally, and in the past several years has used the name "Rigo 23" more or less steadily. This is in keeping with Misplaced Pages convention on persons know mainly by a pen name or alias. (For example, the title of the Le Corbusier article uses his nickname rather than his given name, Charles-Edouard Jeanneret.)

I also fleshed out the article a bit and added some citations. Its still a stub, though, and could use further expansion.

Also, If you're interested in the topic of San Francisco artists, Misplaced Pages could really use an article on Chris Johanson. Peter G Werner 08:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. It took me a while to find the cite in , and although a better source would be phenomenal I'm completely fine with that. Nice work on the article! Snoutwood 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could find a better cite, too, but so far, that's the only source I have explaining why he dropped Rigo+year in favor of "Rigo 23". Peter G Werner 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should put it at Rigo (muralist)? That would deal with the pen name issue, as well as all 19 of the year-end names he's used. What do you think of that? Snoutwood 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I considered that, but the problem is that he's never used just Rigo. Peter G Werner 21:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also - I "google tested" it – a search for "Rigo 23" turns up the largest number of hits concerning him. Peter G Werner 21:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

fair use

if you are unhuppy with situations like this please consider to visite from time to time Misplaced Pages talk:Fair use,where this insane policy was made and participate in the votes.Please also trie to atracte others to the isue.--Bootstrapping 14:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year mate! Glad to see your still being a nuisance! Eusebeus 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year yourself, you old crazy doc! Good to see you kicking around still as well... Thanks for the note, it made me smile :) Don't destroy everything while I'm gone, I want something to wreck once I'm back more full time :) Snoutwood 06:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste Editing

Please, please, please don't move pages with cut-and-paste as you did with the pages listed here. It's a bad idea, as it ruins our GFDL compliance, and it always has to be undone. Please read Misplaced Pages:How to rename (move) a page and Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut and paste moves for more details (or feel free to talk to me, of course). Additionally, please don't move pages in such quantities without discussion, as you seem to have done, as mass page moves take a lot of work to do and undo if the new titles aren't the ideal ones. Thank you very much, and please absolutely come to my talk page with any questions. Cheers, Snoutwood 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snoutwood,

I am deeply sorry for performing copy-and-paste editing. A little bit about myself, I am Smcafirst, and I recently joined Misplaced Pages in September 2006, and became active in November 2006. (Check Wanna Be Kate for details) A few policies in Misplaced Pages, I am not very familiar with, such as copy-and-pasting. From a wikiproject, something like copyeditting (I forgot), I miss understood its name. I would want to move pages, but I do not know how, please teach me so. Thank you!

--Smcafirst or Nick • Sign Here • Chit-Chat • Contribs at 21:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also, could you please tell me whether this signature is valid for WP:SIG or not. I think it is, many think it is not. I would like one more piece of advise.

One more thing, if convenient, please give advise for List of Municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe, thank you.

No worries! For how to move pages, you can read Misplaced Pages:How to rename (move) a page for details, but the short of it is that you click on the "move" tab at the top of the page to the right of the "edit this page" and "history" buttons. Then, fill in the fields on that form, check whether or not you want to move the talk page or watch the page, and then hit "move page!" That's all there is to it.

As for your sig, a lot of people think that signatures should be short and consist of just your username (like mine) or with only very discreet links to your talk page, log, or contribs. The reason for this is that long sigs, like yours, make following discussions and especially editing long discussions more difficult. Personally, I think that short sigs are a very good idea, but there's no policy preventing you from having a long one (just etiquette). I would recommend shortening it to something like just your username (thus: Smcafirst), or something short and simple, like "Smcafirst (talk)." Remember the point of a signature: it's only to help people follow who said what in conversations. That's it! When you use complicated code, it's harder to see what's happening when you're in the edit box. If you keep that in mind, you should do fine. You can always use your userpage to express yourself instead of your signature.

As for List of Municipalities in the Golden Horseshoe, since I'm not familiar with that stuff I would read Misplaced Pages:What is a featured list? and follow the information there to make the best possible article. The Misplaced Pages:List guidelines may also be helpful. Then, once you've done the best you can, take it to Misplaced Pages:Peer review and that'll give you information that will put you well on your way to a featured list.

Hope that helps: do you have any other questions? If there's anything else, don't hesitate to ask. Snoutwood 22:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

James Moody

Thanks for cleaning that up, but the redir at James Moody is back to thinking it has a "history", so I can't move the dab page over it (which I very strongly think is the best place for it--if the dab page gets 'primary disambiguation', why waste time, etc. by going thru a redir?). If you REALLY don't want to do do the move, if you can at least make it possible for me to do it, I will. Seattlenow 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Move done! Only reason I didn't do it before was that I wasn't sure which was wanted. All cleared up now, hope that works. Cheers, Snoutwood 09:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My carelessness

Thank you for attempting to sort out my stupidity. It was actually another part of the page where I had not put in a ":" on a piped link. Sorry about that. Ksbrown 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure, no worries — I've done that a thousand times. Glad to hear that it's figured out now. Snoutwood 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AbRep

Hi, I noticed you have one again reverted my edits to the Abuse Report page and in doing so, claimed "for something that you just made up?" - I resent the implication that I made anything up. If you look at the history of the page you'll see I and 2 other editors have reverted your edits. In case your not aware, Abuse Reports are not officially sanctioned by the Foundation, my comments were that we cannot ban any IP address or range as that falls outwith Abuse Report and indeed any administrators remit. This was changed to "block" which is going to be outwith the remit of Abuse Reports, as reports requiring immediate administrator attention should be made to WP:AIV, WP:AN orWP:ANI. There is nothing in the blocking policy which supports blocking IP addresses on AbRep unless they are actively vandalism at the time of being reported, and for effectiveness, the report for the IP address or range should be made to any of the previously mentioned areas, ideally with an Abuse Report then being filled by the blocking admin, if necessary. When it comes to banning users, there's no single administrator who can place a ban, and certainly not sufficient numbers of Abuse Report volunteers to be able to ask for a community ban, which leaves us needing to ask the arbitration committee, Jimbo or the foundation. I hope you'll realise why I'm trying to ensure users who are thinking about using the Abuse Report system know exactly what it does. Perhaps it should be renamed to "Long Term Abuse Reports" so as to make it clearer, and in any case it must be made clear that asking for blocks and especially asking for bans is outwith the remit of the remit of the volunteers on AbRep. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I apologise for snapping at you in my edit summary, but you did, in fact, claim that there was a consensus for something that hadn't even been discussed, hence the comment. You simply cannot claim a consensus for something that hasn't been discussed. You hadn't even posted your talk page comment when you made that claim.

WP:ABUSE is a centralised forum for reporting vandalising IP addresses to their ISPs. This violates no policy. IP addresses reported within this system are often blocked for one of two reasons: one, they're vandals, and may be blocked under the blocking policy, or two, the block is requested by the school or ISP and is blocked for that reason, as a community ban and under the vandal blocking policy. We would, in this case, allow for account creation and block as IP address only (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35#Blocking on request?, and note that the issue of good contributors not being able to edit from there has been resolved).

There is no issue with IP addresses being blocked within this system. It follows the blocking policy and the precedents set elsewhere, and your contention that administrators cannot block the IPs listed is false. The entire point of ISP reporting is to cut down on vandalism; naturally, that will involve blocking. Snoutwood 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking isn't what I was concerned about, and looking through the history of that page, I notice someone changed the text I had entered regarding bans and changed it to blocks, which wasn't what I wanted to add to the page at all. Since the project lacks a reasonable number of admins (though hopefully more look in from time to time) it's unreasonable to use AbRep as a dumping groud for requests for blocks, AbRep isn't covered in any policy as a place where requests for a block can be made, but that clearly wouldn't prevent an administrator blocking in accordance with blocking policy. What I was trying to convey is that we're not authorised by the foundation to ban any IP address from editing Misplaced Pages, nor can Abuse Report really justify recommending or blocking an IP address or range of IP addresses based solely on past behaviour as it would be out of line with the blocking policy. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to my userpage

Hey. It's an improvement so I have no problems with it. :) --Woohookitty 02:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Snoutwood 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:SPLICE

Not to whack you upside the head too much, but if you list something at WP:SPLICE and also use {{db-histmerge}} it helps us a lot if you remove your request from SPLICE once it's dealt with. Hopefully it won't happen much, but please remember that in general you're in some sense responsible for discussions you open and it's helpful if you close them when they're done so that folks like me don't spend too much time checking up on something that isn't an issue anymore. Thanks :) Snoutwood 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know.  :) Peace, delldot | talk 16:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Kyle Barbour 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Not only did you cheerfully repair 26 cut and paste moves, but you took the time to correct the naming scheme. When that was done, and lesser editors would have moved on, you noticed the need for a front page and a connecting template, and made it happen. Thanks! -- Norvy (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Berlin Center

Please don't do this. It's not actually necessary — were I to move the page there I'd need to delete the whole page, which is different from blanking. I appreciate the thought, though :) Thanks, Kyle Barbour 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the redirect because I didn't see anything wrong with doing so if it were to be moved. Sorry! By the way, what's improper with moving the page to the actual name of the entity? Nyttend 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, I was just being a moron :( I've moved the page now. I thought I'd seen something wrong and hadn't, actually :) My mistake, sorry. Kyle Barbour 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, as for New Russia Township, Lorain County, Ohio: perfectly fine new name for it, and I've done the move, but please please please don't cut and paste moves. It messes up our GFDL compliance (see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights) and screws with things in general. It's not a huge deal, and it's all taken care of, but you may want to take a gander at WP:MOVE. Thanks! Kyle Barbour 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, but I'm not clear what you mean; I didn't do any cut-and-paste moves, unless the term means something other than I take it to mean. Do you mean how I created a New Russia Township article when the Russia Township article already existed? That was not intended to be a cut-and-paste move; seeing that there was no New Russia Township article, I created one, and only found out about the Russia Township article afterward. Nyttend 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I was unaware that you hadn't known that an article already existed, my pardon. Since they looked similar I assumed. Sorry, mea culpa. Kyle Barbour 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was my mistake in the first place that created this situation. Sorry for creating it, and thanks for resolving it! Nyttend 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jinabhai Vasanji

Why did you move this without checking with the editors involved? The move was extremely controversial, concerning a question of NPoV. You also failed to deal with double redirects. I've moved it back. If yo're going to move articles presented as uncontroversial, you need first to make sure that the editor is telling the truth; in this case, he wasn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it as uncontroversial because based on my understanding of the manual of style it seemed like a reasonable suggestion, and there was nothing on the talk pages of either articles to suggest that there would be any opposition to the move. In addition, I point you to Guru Ram Das, Ananta Das Babaji, Osho, and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) for examples and a rationale for why that naming format, and thus, my move, makes sense. Indeed, looking at the talk page, which now has a small conversation regarding the move, it doesn't appear that there is any consensus for your view. As such I feel that armed with the information that I had, considering the move as uncontroversial was entirely appropriate (noting again that when I made the move, there wasn't any such controversy apparent).

As for the double redirects, I've looked at Special:Whatlinkshere again to see where my error was, and to be honest, I didn't see that I did miss any — if so, that's an uncharacteristic error and I apologise for it, but in all fairness that seems like a small problem. Also, in response to your concerns about my not talking to the editors, that's standard for all RMs. If it's a move that's uncontroversial, then you wouldn't contact all of the editors for the obvious reason, and if it's anything else than there should be discussion on the talk page. Lastly, to be totally honest I'm not sure what you could be referring to when you say that the editor who requested the move (User:Moksha88) wasn't telling the truth — perhaps you meant that you disagree with his rationale? He appears to me to put forth perfectly cogent reasoning, and seems to be continuing to do so on the talk page.

Anyhow, I'm sorry that I moved a page that I thought was uncontroversial and seems to not have been. I hope that given what I've stated above that you can see how that was a reasonable mistake to have made under the circumstances. I'll try to avoid that in the future — if you have some suggestions I'd welcome them. Thanks for mentioning this to me. Kyle Barbour 21:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across too snappily. The editor in question (and others I think) had tried a number of times (without argument or explanation) to change the lead so that their preferred name came first. the "uncontroversial move" request (which wasn't mentioned at the Talk page) seemed to be a way of getting what they wanted without actually engaging in discussion. There's now a discussion.

The problem in general (and you're rigth that it applies to a large number of articles) is that names involving honorifics and other evaluations are being used as article titles in a way that's in tension with NPoV. When it's done in the context of the Abrahamic religions most editors are pretty vigilant, but religions such as Hinduism get away with it much too often. The article on Gandhi, for example, uses his religious honorific title instead of his name; that might be justifiable on grounds of familiarity, but the same is done on hundreds of other articles where the same reason doesn't apply.

Anyway, sorry to go on at such length. The name change is being discussed at the Talk page now. Thansk for your response. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries :) The honorific issue can definitely be a problem , and I can't help but notice that it doesn't apply to Western clergy (see WP:NCWC). Funny, that...

Anyhow, hopefully it'll be worked out on the talk page. As for my part, in the future I'll direct such articles to the "controversial" section :) All the best, Kyle Barbour 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging etc

Hey there — I just saw this and I can't help but wonder: how does it get undone, and why would you need it to? I'm assuming that if you delete an article like that you're going to perform the merge, and since I work on WP:SPLICE a fair bit I was wondering what was up there. Just curious :) Kyle Barbour 20:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kyle!

As well as "delete", I have "undelete", so an article can reappear if required. I've made a note to do it if nothing happens. And, no, the merge won't be done automatically via a speedy delete (the template, for instance, only asks for the page to be deleted so that the merge can be done, not so it will be done) although, if the page was linked from WP:PM it could be done... probably not by me as I do all these things on by counting fingers and tend to run out of them when it comes to merges due to the way my brain is (mis)wired. So, in short - CSD is a bad way of achieving a merge unless the nominator is ready to do the next stage and then ask for help (or something... boy do I hate merges!) Happy editing! 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reply :)

I know you have undelete (I am an admin, after all :) ) — I suppose that really what I was wondering is if you aren't going to perform the merge, then why delete the page? Sometimes the history merges are complicated, and require attention — if you simply delete the page, none of the other steps get done (the actual merge, the undeletion and history merge, fixing redirects, collateral damage, and so forth). It's perfectly fine to not do the merge, but then it's best if the page isn't deleted so that things are clearer, since the deletion muddles things up a bit (since the template's gone, relevant history isn't available to the non-admin user, etc.). Kyle Barbour 19:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WHAT???

Please don't copy-and-paste moves as you did with a number of radio station articles. It ruins GFDL compliance and always has to be undone, so it wastes a lot of time. Please move pages using the move tab in the future. Additionally, before you do so, please read relevant pages (in this case WP:NC#Broadcasting) and discuss the move with fellow editors, as it seems that your moves have been against those conventions and have thus been contentious. Thanks, Kyle Barbour 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you looking for an explanation then let me say this...

Users are constantly moving articles in erroneous fashion...

For example, WSNX radio in Muskegon, Michigan was at one point located at WSNX (FM), but what the users don't know is that the FCC query lists the station as WSNX-FM. The query has the "-FM" suffix attached to the station's call letters but someone keeps changing it without a cause.

So that's why I had to change it back, I'm sorry about the way I'm doing it but it had to be done one way or another... Please understand my cause!!! --WIKISCRIPPS 07 SUN FEB 18 2007 6:00 PM EST

I don't have a problem with you moving pages, you can move pages all you want, so long as there is consensus to do so amongst the editors involved and you don't copy and paste the pages, but use the move tab. All I'm really asking is that you follow the guidelines on WP:MOVE and be reasonable. Kyle Barbour 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What if an article you're trying to move it to is already taken, then what??? --WIKISCRIPPS 07 MON FEB 19 2007 6:55 PM EST

Then list the page at WP:RM and an admin will take care of that for you. Kyle Barbour 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Trafford (cricket ground)

Hi, you recently closed a move-article request suggesting that you did not see consensus. While I agree that the page makes it extremely unclear that consensus has been reached, the issues concerned with the move were resolved as illustrated by the following diffs: diff 1 and diff 2. The previously conflicting parties - myself and User:TerriersFan - have been awaiting admin assistance in moving this page to its correct title of Old Trafford Cricket Ground for some time now, as illustrated by talk-page discussions (1, 2). We would appreciate it if you saved us the hastle of relisting just because of unclarities on the talk page.

Regards, DJR (T) 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)