Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:11, 28 July 2007

I'll only be editing sporadically for the next few months, as I will be away for most of the summer. See you all around September! :) Cbrown1023 talk 01:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Current March 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 – August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 – August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – June 2010 July 2010 – December 2010 January 2011 – June 2011 July 2011 – December 2011 January 2012 – June 2012 July 2012 – December 2012 January 2013 – June 2013 July 2013 – December 2013 January 2014 – December 2014 January 2015 – December 2015 January 2016 – December 2021 January 2022 –

Hi.

Removing sourced material per request of subject of bios

Hi Cbrown, I see that you removed some material from two (2) bios Zac Efron and Nicky Campbell with the edit summary mentioning you did this at the subjects request and that some material was not correct. In my opinion, this sets a very bad precedent. In Zac's case, I am not sure if his ethnicity was ever properly sourced, so no big deal. If the material CAN be sourced, what is the problem? In the case of Cambbell, it appears that you removed a properly sourced article about him. Maybe the material could be tweeked to be more neutral or reflect more accurately what the article pointed out. Anyways, how is this verified about what the subject is requesting and regardless unless it is blatantly libelous and harmful it seems that it should be included. Again, this seems like a VERY slippery slope to start down. Thanks! --Tom 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the bio of Zac Efron, that material definitely shouldn't have been there. But for Nicky Campbell, I do agree that the evidence is conving. Although the subject did send an e-mail saying that this was false. I will not revert the other user at this time, but it may happen next time the subject e-mails (in which case I will let another agent handle the case). Whether or not that bit in the Campbell biography was untrue or not, it definitely was harmful to that person's career.

The infomration is verifiable by those who have accounts on OTRS and can see the tickets I was referring to. If the instructions were from private correspondance, I would share that infomration with others who had account on OTRS (if and only if it was truly needed). It may be a "VERY slippery slope" (not sure what you mean by "to start down"), but this is people biographies we are talking about. These can affect there lives in many ways. We aim to portray them accurately and verifiably, but sometimes that does not happen. We have policies and the ability for the subjects to e-mail us for these reasons. It may be a slippery slope, but it is a necessary one nevertheless. Cbrown1023 talk 23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cbrown thanks for the reply. Even if its harmful, if its properly sourced and VERIFIABLE it should be included. There is a ton of material that is harmful to people in here but it is included anyways. I agree that ANY inaccurate material should be removed, especially if it is harmful, but verifiably ACCURATE material should be included. The slope I refer to is when people want their bios to read a certain way. I am of the opinion that we should accept zero to very little imput from the subjects of bios about their article. Again, if material is inaccurate/libelous it should be removed and subjects can help point that out. Also, you say that the subject emailed you? How can you verify the authenticity of the request? Also, it seems that the whole community should be able to review and have imput into whether or not the material is added or not. The thing I love most about Misplaced Pages is the transparancy of the editing and the history that goes with it. The more that things can be done where everybody can have imput and verify information for themselves and make up their own minds the better. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC) ps, from my contributions, you will see that I am BIG into removing unsourced material which I feel is a big problem for this project right now.

I agree with you on most points, and feel you fought your point too hard when I agreed with you mostly in my last response. But the fact of the matter is, you can't be so naiive to think that *all* the information is transparent, some most remain private. Furthermore, we do not take requests of subjects for non-important things. If there is a very large problem that can ruin someone or is libellous, we take care into looking at it. Cbrown1023 talk 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

July newsletter

I definitely will be unable to do it, so I'll leave a message on the talk page of the project and see if anyone is willing to do it. Are they able to run your bot to do it or can that solely be done by you? If not, then I'll give them the instructions on how to do it using AWB. For me, AWB still takes to long for the amount of names, so in between loading times, I copy and paste the information in random member's talk pages to speed up the process. But hopefully somebody steps up soon, I'm leaving in two days. --Nehrams2020 05:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My bot can solely be done by me. So it must just be some random bloke with AWB. :) Cbrown1023 talk 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought, but just figured I'd check. If I don't hear a response soon, I'll just leave a message on the project's talk page, saying that it will be delivered a few days late. I don't think that will be a problem, as I'm sure our members are not constantly refreshing their talk page waiting for the delivery of their beloved newsletter. --Nehrams2020 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Cbrown1023 talk 17:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody was thrilled at the prospect of doing the delivery, so it looks like I'm canceling my trip to Florida. No, I'll just deliver it when I get back. Or if you have the chance, could you possibly leave a message for one of the bots that deliver newsletters at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Newsletters? There are four of them there that could deliver it if the newsletter is completed and ready to go. I can't leave a message as I'm leaving in the next twenty minutes. If you're unable to reach one of them to deliver the newsletter then I will just wait until August 4 or 5. Anyway, hopefully this doesn't happen again next month, but it should be too much of a problem. Talk to you when I get back. --Nehrams2020 21:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PA Chapter

Hey - I realize I'm responding a lot later to an almost certainly automated message, sorry. I love the idea of a PA chapter... how do I join? The amount of free time I'll have varies unpredictably, but I'd love to help out if I can. (Just in case it's needed, I'm in Doylestown, Bucks County) David DiBattiste 00:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It was only semi-automated :). It has not been officially set-up yet, but if you wish to participate, you could create an account on our official wiki (http://pa.us.wikimedia.org) and view what we have there/partiicpate in our discussions). Thank you so much for showing interest! Cbrown1023 talk 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Walker

You deleted a phrase from the article with an edit summary: Removing bit that does not seem to be true... (OTRS: Ticket#: 2007071910002491). Can you give us some more specific guidance as to what was improper? See the published sources that User:Dual Freq posted on Talk:Daniel Walker. Is the problem with the word "fraudulently" versus "improperly" as reported in Walker's plea agreement? Is it the amount of the loans? Is it the fact that prosecutors charged that he used to the proceeds on repairs to his yacht and the plea agreement may not have covered that? Any assistance you can give will be appreciated. -- DS1953 02:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The subject e-mailed in saying that it was right except for that little bit. Please provide an easily accessible source to back that up, or we have no way of knowing what is right or not. Cbrown1023 talk 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There are about 10 sources there, all are from Lexis-Nexis. What exactly was wrong with the statement? --Dual Freq 11:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The subject e-mailed in saying there is one sentence in the article that was "seriously wrong". He said the bank fraud that he was convicted of solely involved borrowing money who borrowed it from S&L. He pointed to his book, "The Maverick and The Machine: Governor Dan Walker Tells His Story" (pages 293-297) for more information. Cbrown1023 talk 18:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And what about the sources provided on Talk:Daniel Walker? Those are mostly articles written during that time period, and were/are the only sources available to me. Certainly his contention at the time was that he did not personally benefit, but the prosecutor and the judge disagreed with that. According to the AP article, Former Governor Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison from November 19, 1987, U.S. District Judge Ann Williams said at his sentencing, "It's clear to this court that a pattern was established and that you, Mr. Walker, thought this bank was your own personal piggy bank to bail you out whenever you got into trouble," Misplaced Pages's bio took a very lenient tone towards his crimes summarizing it in one sentence, which was removed because of a single e-mail. I still do not understand what the problem with the statement was. As for the autobiography you've listed, that is/was not available to me as a source and would reflect his opinion on the issue. Either way I have no way to verify what that book says or doesn't say. --Dual Freq 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I, I have no opinion whatsoever, but the fact of the matter stands: that is what he told us, and that is what I acted upon. Cbrown1023 talk 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all my contributions to that article just to be sure that wikipedia is clear of any liability. Maybe he can get a PR firm to redo the article. I'm sorry to actually research an article before editing it, next time I'll skip the research step. --Dual Freq 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.... wtf? You missed my point, I was explaining my past actions, I meant that I wasn't going to do anything if you changed back. Meaning I believed you were right. *sigh* Cbrown1023 talk 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CMSimple

Hello, I was just wondering how come you decided that the outcome of that AfD was Keep, it would seem nobody who chose "keep" as an opinion, gave any references to policies, whereas the users having elected deletion did. Did I miss something ? Jackaranga 21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That was months ago, but more people felt it should be kept as opposed to deleted, or so I thought when I closed it. :) Cbrown1023 talk 00:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)