Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:44, 26 February 2008

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue III - March 18, 2007

In this edition: News & Notes New look for Wine Project Page; Wine Article assessment; Operation Stub-killer; New Template for Australian Wineries; New wine stub categories proposed. Wiki-Winos This issue's feature Christopher Tanner, CCC Wine Improvement Drive - Pinot Gris plus update on last WID article Languedoc wine

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Misplaced Pages wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IV - April 1st, 2007

In this edition: News & Notes New Grape Infobox; Standard Grape article format; Wine photos; New wine stub categories created; Wine related deletion notices; and more Sub Projects Updates on Operation Stub Killer Wiki-Winos This issue's feature Steve Moulding. Wine Improvement Drive - Sauvignon blanc plus update on last WID article Pinot gris and comments on the new B Article Adoption

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Misplaced Pages wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue V - April 15, 2007

For a million random unrelated things, you deserve a...

(barnstar is on holiday...moving to my user page)

WP:TRIVIA

Could you accompany your assessment with a reply on the talk page? I dorftrottel I talk I 14:52, November 23, 2007

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VII - December 8th, 2007

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VIII - December 22nd, 2007

Notability of Slide.com

A tag has been placed on Slide.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vgranucci (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Misplaced Pages's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Opinion & Process

Hi, I've noticed that you have been participating in deletion/notability discussions, so I'd like to ask you for your opinion on List_of_films_that_most_frequently_use_the_word_"fuck". As you can see it has been nominated for deletion many times. However the gang of supporters seems to be so strong, that such a nomination can never win. I strongly believe, this is not an encyclopedic article. I don't believe that strongly that it can't make past the notability filter, but I believe that it is almost entirely OR. I've seen so many great ideas crashing because of this famous OR rule, but this is how encyclopedia works, right?

For instance, let's check the main count "source", written in the Ref. column of each movie's row. it's mostly 2-3 sites and one of them (I might be wrong, but it seemed to me, that most references are from that site) is out of service - it doesn't work anymore. Now if we check all other "sources" (sorry, I just can't use sources instead of "sources", I'm sure you'll have no problem seeing through this blatant forcing of my opinion ;) ), we can see that no two sources have the same word count. Apart from no longer working FMG, most sources are from SI, Screenit. For instance Pulp Fiction, one of my favorite movies, has "At least 260 "f" words" written on their site. The Wiki article says, it's 265 apparently sourcing from FGM. Preview Online says it's "about 250 f-words", that's also one of the "resources" that this wiki article claims to be using. Another one of the resources, Kids in Mind, says "About 250 F-words". The screenplay says it's 187 f-words. One of the users on their talk page says it's 274 f-words. To make it short - nobody knows. It's mostly original research and reading their talk page it seems to me like they are negotiating which of the numbers seems more appropriate / which source is better. I'm a wiki noob but to me this doesn't seem Wiki at all. Apart from no longer working FMG, all other "sources" are writting their reviews with one of the words "at least" or "about"/"around". How verifiable is this? The article writes down a number, one number, no abouts or at leasts.

So what is your opinion regarding the article and my rant so far? Also based on my arguments, what kind of path do you think I should take, if I'd like to propose the article to be deleted? Obviously the discussion is not going to work and I don't base this only on results so far. The voters in that discussion are the same people, that write 75% of all "I counted f words in XY movie and it's 345, add the movie." users on their talk page, which means that they don't have any idea about sources or OR rules. The editor of course doesn't add their OR (he tries very hard to get good sources, but he hasn't managed so far and he is never going to get them; sad but true), but I'm just saying that those people are going to vote for "keep" any time of the day, because they "like" that. When I was reading the commentaries in voting section, I couldn't believe that the decision was taken based on those explanations. "I vote for keep, because it's a lot of original research here." WTF?!

Since you know these lands much better, do you know any other established member, who might be interested in reviewing this matter? I don't want to make any quick decisions, the article doesn't hurt anyone, besides Misplaced Pages as Encyclopedia.

Thanks for your time. --JTrdi (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look, but perhaps this is one of those unsolvable issues. There are a handful of things on Misplaced Pages that aren't right, but that nobody is every going to do anything about. Just be glad the OR and unsourced unencyclopedic content is in this article and not a really important one. I'll keep an open mind but I'm not sure it's a useful article. There are certainly people and sites that count bad words in films, and incidents of violence and sex. That doesn't necessarily make a list article notability. But if we get past that issue I doubt that even reliable sources are going to agree on the count. They just don't exercise a whole lot of oversight and editorial control in counting, plus there are issues of what constitutes an utterance of the word - a partial one, interrupted, in the background? And then different edits / cuts of the same film, and various DVD releases that are slightly different than the theatrical version. Counting it yourself does sound like OR, and a big waste of time. The one thing, a defunct source is still a source (I think). If a fact used to be sourceable it doesn't pop out of existence simply because the website for the citation goes out of business. It would be best to preserve it somehow or find it in archive.org. Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's a comment in the article that although Family Media Guide is defunct the reviews (which do contain an F-word count) are still available at the Internet Archive, aka the Wayback Machine, archive.org. So that's a good source. It is independent, and reliable as far as it goes. They make a determined effort there and in the other places to count F words, thought they admit the count is not precise. They usually say "at least" xxxx. We could get some inaccuracy by comparing counts from different sources that compare it differently. Calculating and graphing the results, and creating "F per minute" ratings by dividing it by the running time, would seem like original research, more specifically original analysis. But that's actually an interesting issue on Misplaced Pages. It's considered okay to make your own graphs and charts based on available data, as long as all you're doing is a simple graph and not anything intricate. So I guess the article is okay as far as that goes. It's just a very silly and perhaps pointless article, the kind of thing where everyone scratches there head and says "gee whiz, why is that on Misplaced Pages?" In a perfect world we would use that portion of the server disk space for something more important. But if there is as much support for the article as you say, what can you do? Wikidemo (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi Wikidemo - bothering you again. Could you please give a look on Alan Moore and Buddhist art? They were contested deletion, and of course not such a clear cut like it was with the Arthur Clarke articles.--Legionarius (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IX - January 7th, 2008

1998 Webby Awards

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1998 Webby Awards, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of Webby Award winners. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

tempura

Hi, wikidemo. I added info and 10 different sources. Reverted again, tagged as spam ? please, could you help me? Pinaster —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jjogla cover.jpg

I'm nervous about this kind of thing b/c my lack of understanding has got me into trouble before. But I am pretty sure that as the front page of a newspaper it is uncontraversial to use it as an illustration for the subject. Category:Fair use newspaper covers contains about 1,500 such images. Why do you think it is problematic? Lobojo (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If necessary it would be usable to illustrate the newspaper itself in an article about the paper. However, by using the newspaper's photo to illustrate our own article about a subject similar to the article in the newspaper, we are usurping the commercial purpose of the photograph, i.e. to document an event. Newspapers pay photographers (and photo services, wherever the source of the image comes from) so that they may have an image accompanying the story and thereby make their story more compelling, informative, useful, etc. We use images for the same purpose. So that is a big mark against one of the four factors needed for something to be fair use under the law. Also, on Misplaced Pages there is a criterion having to do with necessity. Does the image contribute substantially to the reader's understanding of the subject, and does it say something that words alone cannot. In this case it does not add a whole lot to the scandal other than showing that the Rabbi is reacting to it. There is a criterion of replacdeability - can we find an uncopyrighted image that would show the same thing. Here, yes - he is a living person so in theory anyone could take a photo of him. For that reason photos of still-living people are rarely permitted. Wikidemo (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is relevant. Newspaper front pages are automatically fair use for anyone in that they are classed as promotional material. These images are used all over wikipedia to illustrate stories. Have a look at the details on the copyright page. Living person, replaceablity does not even come into it. "Newspaper front cover about a story" ==>> fair use on articles about that story. There is nothing more to this as far as I can see. Also the fact that they used one large photo to illustate their front page last week does not convert the image into a regular photo if that is what you are suggesting. Read the regulation for newspaper cover use. It is not out business who pays for what - newspaper covers are promotional and are fair use on articles regarding the subjects and the publications. Lobojo (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a correct statement of the law of fair use. Who pays for what is a big part of the question of transformative use, which is at the center of fair use analysis. Replacing the original commercial function of the copyrighted work is a strong indication that the use is not fair. Anyway, we don't use promotional photos usually. That's standard WP:NONFREE policy. If newspaper covers are used like that on Misplaced Pages i'ts against policy and they'll be removed eventually. Wikidemo (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just reading from the blurb that comes up when you use the template.

This seems 100% clear-cut. This is the policy on wikipedia, again we are not talking about a promotional photo we are talking about a newspaper front page. Lobojo (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just a statement from a template that may be used if and only if the statement is true and the image conforms to policy. That does not make the statement true as a matter of law or policy - in most cases it is not, and the photo should not be used. For the policy on the issue, take a look at WP:NONFREE. Those kind of images are not allowed, period. I'm trying to explain law and policy, not argue it. If you want other opinions, there are places to ask, e.g. Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions, Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy‎, and Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content‎. Wikidemo (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, since you've re-added the image I've taken the liberty of raising the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content - currently at the very bottom of that page. Wikidemo (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look I don't know what you are talking about here, I am baffled reading you words. You keep refering me to WP:NOTFREE though this is less than enlightening. Only if what statement is true? This reasoning is circular: You say "the image conforms to policy. . . if the image conforms to policy". It is clearly stated that newspaper covers are fair use on wikipedia to illustrate notable stories if low res (they are all automatically unreplaceable since they are what they are.) This is set out in black on white, and I have quoted it for you above. Misplaced Pages wouldn't have (widely used!) templates that fundamentally violate policy! How can you possibly say "Those kind of images are not allowed period, when wikipedia has extensive policy statement describing when we can use them? I am more and more confused by every subsequent reply you make. Lobojo (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, just explaining. The template basically says "this image is okay per policy." That may be true in some instances, and it may not be true in other instances. The actual policy is at WP:NONFREE. Where the image conforms to policy it may be used, with the template. Where the image does not conform to policy it may not be used, and attaching the template to it does not cure that. Similarly, use of an image in this way may well be a copyright violation. Attaching a template claiming it is not a copyright violation does not achieve anything. Most of the uses of the template are correct, to illustrate an article about the periodical in question. Only a few are the improper usage, to illustrate wikipedia articles about the same subject as the news article. If the way I explain it is not clear, perhaps you can wait a little bit to see how other people choose to word it in the new discussion I mention. I don't think I'm wrong but if I am, no doubt people will correct me over there. Wikidemo (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL I am no expert on this so "I'm not arguing either, just explaining!" LOL, nice. From what I have seen this is not problematic. I may be wrong, but the wording currently used clearly supports my position, I that wording is erroneous what am I to do? Lobojo (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

smashLAB Afd

Hi. I've addressed your concerns and given examples of why this article should be kept at this article's entry page. Thanks. Petiep (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Paul Addis

When the ability to protect titles using &action=protect became available, superseding the cascading protection hack, I switched over about 4000 page from the old system to the new system. I have little context as to why the articles were originally protected from re-creation, however, I am able to see the hidden revisions from the article. Paul Addis was moved to User:Natevoodoo/Paul Addis, and subsequently was deleted upon that user's request after the page was blanked with this summary: "blanked to end contention. go away. nothing to see here." That indicates that this article should probably go to WP:DRV; if nothing is objectionable, I have no doubt that the DRV will be quick and easy. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was probably because the article was created too soon after the event that became his main source of notoriety instead of waiting until there was some perspective. Four months later he's still in the news on a variety of subjects, some of them positive even. I'll take a look. It may be a while before I do anything but I'll let you know as a courtesy if and when I do, and probably won't need to see the deleted article to write a new one. Wikidemo (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

complaint filed

As part of the complaint process, I'm required to let you know that a complaint has been filed against you for repeatedly deleting the criticism section of the Webby Awards article, without giving a *valid* reason (aside from calling it "inappropriate" in a very generic sense, though the section is proper, truthful, and well-cited). This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD

Just a heads up, Template:Non-free rationale has been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 20#Template:Non-free rationale by some other user. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great minds post alike

Second time this happened to me today...don't know how my template replaced your edits. Revert mine if as you see fit. Flowanda | Talk 04:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shirley Fong-Torres

Hi, if she's notable enough to include, then it would be good for you to tidy and wikify the page and add some mention into the article of why she's notable. Bob talk 21:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, the article needs improving clearly. I don't have the time, expertise, or interest in her to bring it up to a decent article or even a start class but I'll see if I can get it beyond a mini-stub.Wikidemo (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bob talk 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that I've done a little, I see the problem that stopped me in the first place. Most of the news articles about her are in subscription sites. From their headlines and short amount of text I get in the google search it looks like they're significant enough mentions to establish notability, but I can't see enough of the articles to properly understand or cite them. Basically, I think her notability comes from being a published author. Her connection with civic affairs, publicity-seeking, and the tour business all combine to make her essentially a minor local celebrity. Wikidemo (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

In your edit summary you say:

"must" is too strong - the vast majority of articles do not comply with this guideline; it is a statement of what an ideal article should look like.

Please show me a single GA or FA article that does not comply with the guideline that you just removed. I even just pressed the random article key 10 times in a row, and in each case the first sentence or two identifies the topic adequately. On what were you basing your statement?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the lead of most articles does not "establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." That is where I restored "must" to "should." Neither the article, nor I, limit the statement to GA or FA, or use the phrase "identifies the topic adequately". As I said in the edit summary, statements of aspiration are usually described with "should"; "must" suggests that it is an absolute requirement, which it is not. Wikidemo (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you have the reader try to guess what the article is about? An article that doesn't identify the topic is inherently unencyclopedic. People read the wikipedia to learn something, not to play guessing games what the topic is. FWIW WP:LEAD on this subject currently reads:

Identify the topic

The first paragraph needs to unambiguously identify the topic for the reader in conjunction with the article's name. The first paragraph also helps declare the scope of the article for other editors and assists in deciding what material should be or is covered.

I don't consider what was written to be an inaccurate précis.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've explained myself but I don't really understand what you're saying here. If you want to propose changes to the guideline perhaps you should do that on the guideline's talk page and see if people are convinced. I don't think it's productive to have a side discussion here, since we're obviously not getting through to each other. Wikidemo (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Book cover fur

Hello. I was wondering what the story is with {{Book cover fur}}. I made a userscript (FURME) to add furs to images and was asked to add some more templated furs. I was wondering if this template was something that was going to be worked on (or was it replaced with {{Book rationale}}?). Basically just looking for a progress report. Thanks - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't gone anywhere with it because it started getting difficult. You're free to take over development on it if you want. I don't think it's in use. One thing to note, when I created it (and also "logo fur" and "album cover fur"), the atmosphere was more hostile to templates so I took a lot of steps to try to explain things. With the subsequent clarification from the Wikimedia Foundation, it's possible that some of the use rationale can be implicit or assumed. So I would probably concentrate on making a simple version for the obvious, normal cases, and just warning people to only use it for those cases and not for all book covers. The complexities have to do with alternate editions, how the book is scanned or photographed, year published, whether it's part of a single book, a series, a magazine, something that's not quite a normal book. Then who the copyright holder, edit, publisher. I don't know how much info is needed but you can see it's a little more complex than album covers or logos. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. At the moment I am not motivated enough (or talented enough in template design) to add functionality for all the odd cases. But I think I will tackle trying to get it ready for the very simple cases. Thanks for the advice. - AWeenieMan (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue X - January 31st, 2008

Notification of new post in "resolved" ANI thread

I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Modifying other users' comments

Hi. I'm not sure this is something you've practiced before, but it cannot repeat. When you modify someone else's comment without attribution, even when it is for "corrections," you make it seem as if the author was the one who struck off something and replaced it with something else. It's a bad idea (etiquette-wise) to change someone's comment even with a little small-font note added below that comment, with a diff documenting the change, but if you do go that, frankly, needlessly confrontational route, that's the least that you are required to do. Thank you. El_C 08:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, it was a complete mistake and I never would have done that on purpose. It was a strange combination of circumstances, but I thought I was editing a comment I made myself last night on that very same thread. I was perplexed as to why I would have mentioned Kintetsubuffalo instead of Maglev Power. My own comment began "In all fairness" or something very close, but it never showed up thanks to a bad Internet connection that shut me down for the night. When I saw yours i assumed it was mine without reading it fully and simply tried to correct what I thought was my own mistake. I should have looked more carefully. Sorry again. Wikidemo (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, in that case we have no problem. No worries; zero harm done. El_C 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk on WP:V

I want to take this off the policy talk page, but I do not think that this comment was really helpful. Sorry if I've distressed you, but your comments on that page simply have not related to the question I was asking as far as I'm concerned. SlimVirgin and Brimba have actually replied about the "Redflag" policy specifically, while you confined your comments to problems you had with the "Allegations" article. Perhaps you technically "gave a policy answer" to my question, but you did it by citing policies like NPOV and OR that I was not asking about, and only as a way to explain why you think the article in question is a poor one. I don't see how you think commenting about how a specific article is an "embarrassment" on a policy talk page is going to get anything accomplished, or why someone who comes to the policy talk page to ask about a general policy and not the article would be interested in your comment.

Of course I would be interested in your comment on the article talk page which I why I suggested you bring up your points there (though I understand that you might not be interested in doing that since the environment there is not so pleasant, but I'm afraid I don't have much control over that). I find it more than a bit beyond the pale that you deem my suggestion (invitation really) that you come to the article talk page as "telling me to get lost" and "making it personal." The main place to address your concerns about the article - I assume you would agree - in on the article page itself, not on the WP:V talk page. And of course I have said absolutely nothing personal about you whatsoever. I simply tried to redirect the WP:V thread toward the question I was asking - which apparently worked for now - and asked you to take your concerns to a better forum. This kind of thing (trying to keep a conversation focused, suggesting editors take their concerns to more appropriate pages) happens on Misplaced Pages all the time, and I find it a bit bewildering that you would accuse me of telling you to get lost and making it personal when anyone can plainly see that that is not the case. I sincerely welcome your participation on the "Allegations" page in whatever fashion you find appropriate (though I myself will probably quit working on that fairly soon). I also still welcome your specific comments about the redflag policy on the policy talk page. I'm afraid I don't know how to be any more collegial or anti-telling-you-to-get-lost than that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe my response was the most appropriate and best answer to your question. You're free to disregard it but again, chastising me both there and here for saying what I think rather than what you want to hear is uncalled for. You don't WP:OWN the policy page any more than you own the article. Perhaps you're so used to the incivility that goes on in the article, and trying so far to keep the discussion focused, you don't notice you've been rude. It's a perfectly valid policy point when someone asks to focus on something to comment that the question focuses on the wrong thing. I know what I'm doing by condemning the article, and my WP:OR and WP:POV comments certainly relate to WP:V. Most would agree it is severely out of kilter, and probably an embarrassment to the project. Yet its defenders have built one of the more fortified gardens around and have so far repelled any attempt to do something about it. Every outsider who actually says plainly what they think instead of playing into the impertinent micro-debates going on in the article is doing some good.Wikidemo (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Really, I am not at all trying to chastise you and apologize if it came off that way. I do wish though that you would assume a little more good faith of me as I do of you. Before reading your comment here I just replied to your last comment on the article talk page where I said "I agree that this talk page can be extremely hostile to new voices and that that is not a good thing. It has always had a rather vitriolic tone to it but that does not excuse anything" and also "...the article could certainly use more editors like yourself who are skeptical of the claims being made." I do resent the accusation that I was rude as I think that is simply not true (also I would note that I have not made any comparable accusation toward you and as a rule do not think calling other editors "rude" is ever helpful). I also resent being implicitly grouped with everyone who has ever edited that page and much of the bad behavior that has happened there. I've worked on it on and off since last summer and think I am probably one of the few editors who has worked effectively with "both sides" of the dispute. Also I have always encouraged outside voices (which is why I opened an RFC recently, and why I posted on the WP:V page asking for help from neutral parties on the main policy sticking point). I'm very willing to listen to your point of view on any question and regret that a simple request to keep discussion on a policy page focused on the main issue has blown up to this degree. I'll leave you alone here though since you view my last comment as uncalled for. I don't want to bother you any further.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see you mean well and you're working earnestly. Thanks for the effort. Wikidemo (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ang Lee

Hi, you seemed to had wanted to RV my edit (RV on possible IP Vandal). I just restored back to the agreed version and add or subtract nothing more. If I made a mistake, please let me know. Thank you. TheAsianGURU (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I beat you to it - I reverted my own edit. But thanks for the courtesy of a notice. Wikidemo (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, bot

If that's not vandalism, then what did you mean by putting such a meaningless post on that talk page? --SMP0328. (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a little rude. Do I really have to explain the obvious? Wikidemo (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for not knowing what is meant by "Hello, bot." What purpose is served by posting "Hello, bot"? --SMP0328. (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page itself.Wikidemo (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

....and now that I've cleared the image from the main page I've deleted the whole discussion, which does not seem worth keeping on village pump (no point archiving a deletion tag for an image that should not have been there in the first place). Wikidemo (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your accusations of "poor" sources in Willie Brown article

...Wikidemo, would you please explain to me what is point of view or "poorly sourced" about my latest critical mass crackdown edits on the Willie Brown article? If you believe that...the San Francisco Chronicle, respected investigative reporters (not editorialists) Phil Matier and Andrew Ross, PBS' MacNeil Lehrer New Hour/Jim Lerhrer (who has moderated major presidential debates just before general elections) and Time Magazine...are "poor" sources that could you please explain to me what your idea of an objective, respected, "good" news source is? Besides, those are about the only news sources out there with an historical record of Brown's 1997 crackdown, besides those in Critical Mass related books, 'zines, Police chat board sites, and other more POV sources on both sides of the fray. Brown --was-- criticized in a --national-- news sources, unless you consider Time Magazine to be the SF Weekly. On Brown's "threats" to jail the riders and impound their bikes, that has multiple sources and my wording is directly from the Time article...I will try to clean it up a bit to address your POV concerns, but please explain your claims that this article is poorly sourced.

Also, Wikidemo, you seem to be strongly concerned about the length of this article, why so much, Willie Brown was no small town dog catcher, he was a big city mayor and Assembly speaker of the most populous US State. He's no small potatoes. He's also an eclectic, complex politician whos world view cut across several ideological directions. he at least deserves an article on par with Byron Rumford and maybe one as long as a prominent US Senator, or State Governor, or Presidential Cabinet offical, maybe not as long as President. Yet I digress.Critical Chris (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

...Wikidemo, I've copied some of my "poor sources" here to simplify the discussion. Can you please explain to me how the following are "poor sources:"

(reformatted to fix format errors)

1. MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour (29 August 1997). MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour Transcript. PBS Public Televison.

source does not support claim

1. Jim Herron Zamora, Chuck Finnie and Emily Gurnon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Examiner wire services contributed to this report.. Brown: Take bikes of busted cyclists. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-27.

I did not challenge that

1. Steve Lopez (11 August 1997). The Scariest Biker Gang Of Them All. Time Magazine.

Op-ed piece written by activist, not reliable source

1. Glen Martin, Henry K. Lee, Torri Minton, Manny Fernandez, Chronicle Staff Writers. S.F. Bike Chaos -- 250 Arrests: 5,000 bikers snarl commute. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved on 1997-07-26.

I did not challenge that source

1. Matier, Phillip and Ross, Andrew (18 July 1997). CRITICAL CHUCKLE: Lots of chuckles down at the Hall of Justice over San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown's demand that Critical Mass cyclists start obeying traffic laws.. San Francisco Chronicle.

Humorous editorial comment in scandal column reported as fact; source does not support claim

1. Anastasia Hendrix and Rachel Gordon, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF (1 August 1997). Mayor again criticizes Critical Mass bicycle riders. San Francisco Examiner.

Weight problems - selectively reporting "weenie" comment is simply taking a potshot at the person

1. Paul Krassner (24 August 1997). YOU CAN'T GET A PERMIT FOR THE REVOLUTION. San Francisco Examiner.

Not reliable source - should not reprint partisan editorial attack on a living person

The last source, I do mention that Krassner is an "editorialist." All the others are hard news sources that you can try to chop away at if you think your axe is sharp enough, but have you actually checked the sources before calling them poor. I've spent quite a bit of time on my documentation here, ferreting out POV horse poo from mainstream news sources and I'm quite frankly offended by your characterization of these as "poor sources."Critical Chris (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Bold textItalic textInternal linkCritical Chris (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll explain in more depth in the article. I have checked this all and it is improperly sourced, either not reliable or not supported by the sources. It is also POV - best to take it to the talk page of the article, which I am preparing.Wikidemo (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Malakov affair: New Information

Dear Wikidemo:

As you will recall about two months ago you & I disagreed on the validity of a Daniel Malakov encyclopedia article on Misplaced Pages. Many WP:Notability and WP:BLP claims were made by yourself and other gentle administrators. Try as I could, there seemed way to convince you that the murder of Daniel Malakov was a significant event requiring a Misplaced Pages page. The page was deleted. No discussion on the merits was permitted, IMHO, by the "Administrator echelon."

In view of the above, I wish to direct your attention to a New York Times article as follows:

February 9, 2008
Man Accused of Killing Dentist Exchanged 91 Calls With Dentist’s Wife
By CHRISTINE HAUSER and DARYL KHAN

You are free to go to nytimes.com and read the article, but perhaps the salient details are as follows:

Those details about the killing of Dr. Malakov on Oct. 28, 2007, emerged Friday from an indictment and at a news conference held by police officials and prosecutors.

As the families of both Dr. Malakov and his estranged wife looked on, Dr. Borukhova, 34, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on Friday to charges including first-degree murder and second-degree conspiracy in an emotion-filled hearing in State Supreme Court in Queens. Mr. Mallayev, 50, faces similar charges.

The defendants could each be sentenced to life in prison without parole. They were ordered held without bail until their next court date, Friday.

At the time you folks decided to ditch the article, this information was not available. Now that it is, and more information ostensibly is to come out as the NYPD and AG begin to make their case in court, I want to know whether you will reverse your position and support an article on Daniel Malakov, or alternatively "Murder of Daniel Malakov."

If not, what would you need to see to support such an article? If you demand a conviction, then I plan to hold you to your promise.

Eileivgyrt (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for reaching out. It's been so long that I don't remember things very clearly. Do you have a link to the deletion debate? As a non-administrator, my power there and now is limited to simply saying my opinion and trying to convince other people. My concern with a number of articles like this is severalfold:

• While a trial is still going on, you don't know if the person will be declared guilty or not, so you cannot really say they are a murderer. The fact that they're on trial is public information, along with the statements made, but that changes so quickly that it's very hard to keep up. That's one of the reasons we avoid "news" style coverage. We just can't keep Misplaced Pages accurate and up to date as news emerges. And then all that effort gets lost when there's a long-term outcome and the day-to-day updates become irrelevant.
• Many of these current events seem very important at the time, and in fact would meet the notability standards. But most one-time news events fade so much over time that after the event is done nobody is interested anymore, and we're left with a long article that nobody cares to read or keep up with. There's a maintenance cost to keeping articles around here, not a technical cost but a human cost because people have to keep a watch on them, make sure the links work, etc.
• The way people sometimes write these articles has timelines, bullet points, summaries of legal theories, and lots of other stuff that just doesn't fit in with our style norms. It doesn't link right, it's hard to edit, etc.

Again, I don't really remember the specifics but I'd be happy to look at them. If you do re-create the article, please consider these things and try to make it as much as possible meet the standards of our good encyclopedic articles. The two biggest hurdles are (1) WP:BLP, that we do not allow speculation, argumentation, derogatory information without strong sources, etc., for living people, and (2) the "not news" section of WP:NOT, that says that to cover a person or event it must have sustained interest and not one-time current news notability. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

your thoughts would be welcome

I posted my plans for BCbots next phase on ANI, your thoughts would be welcome. β 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I just came here to tell you about this. It seems that Betacommand does advertise his phases, though I don't see any notice in places like WT:NFC. It would have been nice as well if he had confirmed that phase 3 was over. I had to prod him several times to get that out of him. Beta, if you are reading this, sorry for the tone of voice I'm using, but it is the same old communication issues coming up time and time again. Have you considered getting someone else to do schedules and notifications for you, allowing you to concentrate on bot operating and programming? Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The current phase is not over and will never be over, it is just nearing the point that a majority of the work is done and whats left will be maintance. I just wanted to give a forwarning heads up and get input prior to starting. β 16:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed...though maintenance should be a lot simpler and smoother than cleaning the backlog. We still need accuracy, good message templates, a way to point people to places they can learn why it happened and how to do it next time. But smacking people on the hand a few hours or days after they upload an image isn't going to generate nearly the same issues as telling them weeks to months after the fact that their image is noncompliant and may be deleted. I'll get to it when I can but don't expect any big objections or complaints from me anymore on this. Wikidemo (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a note about the original plans (back in June) here. Does that refresh you memory enough for more discussion about phase 4? Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

yeah i was confused and pissed off too. nothing i did was vandalism. i just thought i'd try and be funny. that IP address is me. but what can i do? i have also recently been being warned for adding IPA pronunciations and fixing spelling errorsBoomgaylove (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Life on Misplaced Pages, I guess. Wikidemo (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

do you really think the laci peterson info is totally unencyclopedic? i mean Point Isabel is where her body was found. The Laci Peterson case is still mentioned as often as the lindberg baby is. It was a crime of the century type of event. And the park is where she was found. Since there is an article about her and the events regarding her death. I think its very notable. Not inappropriate.71.142.64.177 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think my quick take says it all, we're not a body locator. There are so many crimes. I wouldn't say crime of the century. Every year there are half a dozen that get in the news like crazy. There's one or two going on right now I think. And each one has a body somewhere. I really think that belongs in the article about the event, not the place. It's really a matter of balance. Like, as famous as Jimmy Hoffa is, do people really think about his body being in Giants Stadium? Well, I guess so if you look at the article :). So maybe I prove myself wrong. I wouldn't have removed it if I realized there was a discussion going on, and I'm not going to revert again if anyone adds it back. I guess the question is, if you think about Point Isabel, is that an important part of the history of the place. I know google is a loose test but if you google "point isabel" together with "california" you get 13,600 hits but if you add "peterson" you get 1,700. Does that mean people associate the place with the crime? Maybe. I don't know. My opinion isn't that strong. Wikidemo (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Public domain data and derived rights from using that data

Hi Wikidemo. The title says it all really. Would you have time to comment at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions#Protein Data Bank and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals#mass creation of PDB images? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm not edit warring

plus edit waring doesn't get you blocked, breaking the 3rr rule does. you are the one that's edit warring. TWO USERS are reverting your silly edits. let it goBoomgaylove (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the rules around here. Please take some time to figure them out, and cut it out. My edits are solid, and yours don't count. I'm reverting bad faith edits. Wikidemo (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mine don't count? Hah. Read this! Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC) I reiterate, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am well-aware of BLP policy. The information and the source are an interview in a magazine conducted with the subject himself where he apparently talks about his own drug dealing, for which he was arrested and convicted. That is relevant to his bio as a rap musician, and hardly violates BLP. You are not defending BLP anyway by blanking the entire article while nominating it for deletion. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue XI - February 21st, 2008

edit warring

are you out of your mind? this edit is perfectly legitimate, requesting citations for uncited content is a legitimate edit. removing them arbitrarily is vandalism, no editor has the right to remove a citation request for uncited material. Please be reasonable and less confrontational. You seem to have a vendetta against me, even removing my questions on the the reference desk and you have repeatedly accued me of vandalism, unjustifiably and i believe you even apologized for it. Now i'm not calling you a vandal. But reverting someone who adds {{cn}} or {{fact}} is vandalism. be careful, you don't want to get blocked yourself. Also you should see that the article now has citations for his home-neighborhood and his original name, all because i requested the material be cited. My edits have resulted in a productive outcome, yours have led to drama and butthurt.Boomgaylove (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDALISM, and stop being uncivil and making stuff up. Save it for AN/I. Incidentally, the information was already sourced, and your reference request resulted in a citation fork that I had to fix. Wikidemo (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

note: the above user is now blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing; one of his tactics was to remove citations then attack material as uncited. I did not want to argue with him at the time he made these unfounded allegations but in the course of dealing with his trolling I never accused him of vandalism nor did I ever remove or even see any questions of his a "the reference desk." - Wikidemo (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken

- my humour was probably not wholly appropriate. Still, we do tend to have opinions from different ends of the spectrum, and for them to converge it suggests the issue is pretty crystal clear. Neıl ☎ 14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't offended at all. I am not keeping score, but I think you and I agree on many things if not all; most importantly a dedication to keeping Misplaced Pages running as a good project. Thanks for the communication. Wikidemo (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ERP Vendors and shortening barnstars

Thanks for the backup over here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of ERP vendors

I think its futile to keep arguing with him, The majority of the votes (Well, actually all, not counting his own) are for keeping the article, and frankly he just keeps repeating his own arguments. Im pretty sure that there is no violation of whatever rule at all, and seeing the WP:Point statement you just made, its save to assume there is nothing wrong with this in the first place.

Now for some more lightweighted stuff. I noticed this line under your barnstars:

Now how do I make these a little smaller?

This is actually pretty simply. Just add a HTML break tag <BR> in the text. Text will be broken
Before the end
of the actual line (BR just signals that everything should go to the next line). The above text is obviously a demonstration of this, so just edit this text to see how its done :). Excirial 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to give you some background on where I'm coming from. Perhaps I tend towards a confrontational style - I don't mean to. I'm also sometimes very exact and technically a nitpicker. Apologies. About me: If you look at my edit history, although I also contribute, you will see that mostly I try to clean up articles, mostly by removing links to companies where the mention doesn't contribute to the subject matter. For example, if you look at the CEP article, I argued strongly to keep vendor links off the page, and I encouraged the creation of the List Of page. My motivation at the time was to keep the article 'clean' so to speak, and to see if a "List of XX Vendors" page could become a separate encyclopedic article. When the article was nominated for deletion, I argued to keep the article. It was deleted, and I didn't understand the precise reason why, and I didn't believe a consensus had been achieved. Therefore I asked for a review as I believed strongly at that time that the article should be kept. But during the review, I found that the policies quoted and the arguments made against me were technically correct, and strong, and I found I couldn't justify keeping the article. This was the key moment for me - understanding! Perhaps I should have held back a little while before nominating List of ERP Vendors, but I came across the article very soon after, and so I nominated it. I don't think that WP:POINT is applicable - I am not trying to make a point or get the original article reinstated. I agree with the ruling that I originally objected to... I'm more than happy to put my hand up and step back from taking part any further in the List_of_ERP_Vendors deletion debate. And apologies if I offended. Bardcom (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll assume good faith that you've really changed your position in a several-hour period. The wise man is the one who can admit the error of his opinions. But perhaps you can give other people a little more room to have their own erroneous ways. It was overbearing and unusual to argue so strongly in AfD, and it resulted in a sprawling discussion that's probably offputting to people who would participate. I am not entirely sure what we should do as a project to list articles overall. There are many kinds of lists so probably many different answers. One thing that is clear is that the AfD process creates inconsistent results. The shining example of that, in my opinion, is the cell phone model wars, where it seems about 1/4 to 1/3 of the AfDs succeed and the others don't, with the outcome often being more a factor of who participates and closes each discussion than anything else. There is a time when you want the possibility of split results, when a matter is new and we want to try it out. But at some point a trend should emerge and maybe there should be a clarification or addition to the guideline instead of case-by-case consideration. The general preference is that articles should be improved rather than deleted if there is a core of encyclopedic content. That particular article could be fixed. But maybe we'll find list articles don't get maintained so they're a bad idea. That's the heart of the WP#NOT family of prohibitions, I think, that some types of material, though useful, just don't lend themselves to our way of doing things so we can't do a good job at them. Thanks for taking the initiative of commenting here. Wikidemo (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Jimboquote

Template:Jimboquote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. скоморохъ 03:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Afd

AfD nomination of Cypress Village, Oakland, California

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cypress Village, Oakland, California, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cypress Village, Oakland, California. Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove

Hi Wikidemo,

Given your past (extremely well-documented) interactions with the user, I thought you'd like to know that I've filed a sock report at the above link. Thanks! --jonny-mt 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was, and am, pretty sure this user already has sockpuppets and will set up more. I was letting them go unchekced for a little while to see how badly they behaved. Intervene too early and you might not have enough to stop them. Wait until there's a clear violation of WP:SOCK and there's recourse. I'll check again to see what is going on.Wikidemo (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am Icamepica SqueakBox, BoomGuyLove, ILIke2BeAnonymous.Icamepica (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work--I was just informed of a diff linking Icamepica to one of the suspected IP socks, which I've added to the report. I'd like to do a little bit more groundwork, but it might be time to start thinking about WP:RFCU. --jonny-mt 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of J Stalin

An article that you have been involved in editing, J Stalin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (2nd nomination). Thank you. Icamepica (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Accidental archive edit

Um, yeah, you probably should. I can't because I'm on a sort of topic ban right now, but yeah, go ahead. --Gp75motorsports 14:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll take the safe road though and wait to see if any administrators on AN/I think it's a good idea. It's their board and I'm just a guest there, so I don't really want to start mucking around in archiving and unarchiving things. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Stop sending me silly warning messages in order to promote a POV. if the person is a sock you can make a sock report and get him blocked but your accusations against me will not be tolerated any further. And it is a BLP violation, I don't need another user to tell me what is and isn't a BLP violation, you appear to be harrassing the subject of the article and I hope you will stop. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be trolling me for disagreeing with you. Please desist, this is not acceptable or civil on your part. If you believe a user is a sock puppet you know what top do and when he ios blocked that will be that. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments above are a civility violation over a content dispute that you are edit warring on. If you believe the content is a violation of WP:BLP you should join in the WP:AN/I discussion. The edit you keep trying to make is in support of an abusive sockpuppet, and the material you removed is fully sourced per WP:BLP and WP:RS. If you follow the various links we are dealing with the sockpuppet issue in appropriate fashion. Please follow the available dispute resolution procedures and do not edit war over this. I have no POV and I am not trolling or any of the other uncivil accusations you care to make. Wikidemo (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please keep it real, ANI is not the place for this discussion to take place. Stop trying to silence other users who disagree with you by trying to shut down discussions in bad faith based on unproven accusations and your own opinions. Squeak is not edit warring with you at all. And don't misrepresent things. BLP states that content should be removed without any debate. Not going to an AVI. Your comments and views here are to misuse another rapers name Ludacris! You've stated that you don't have a position on J Stalin but you vote for it to be kept ignoring policy using a nonsense argument ignoring the nominations points.Icamepica (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is rather pointless for me to engage in endless discussion with likely sockpuppets and disruptive editors. The discussion is on AN/I.Wikidemo (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor asked for my help and I gave it, then you reacted and started accusing me of God knows what. If he is a sockpuppet fine but when you start accusing me of meatpuppeting for someone you believe is a sock merely for wanting to help them then we have serious problems on this project. Accusing marginally notable subjects of drug dealing does the project no good whatsoever, please remember that do no harm is one of our 5 pillars, and that I came with good intentions and then had to put up with your harrassment. You well know that warning me on 3 levels is as uncivil as you can get then you accuse me of being uncivil, and all this becauser I tried to help a newbie. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor's request was not in good faith. You have been edit warring in support of a sock puppet who canvassed you, that's the facts of it. You may be doing so in good faith, but to continue edit warring after you've been made aware of the situation is disruptive. I have been asking repeatedly that we keep the status quo, deal with sock puppet issues first, and then deal with any content issues once the dust settles. You continue to be uncivil, accusing me of trolling, POV editing, and now harassment. In the process you are opposing my attempts to deal with the likely ongoing sockpuppetry. Please don't let yourself get sucked into things. I am trying on AN/I to encourage administrators to take a look and deal with the matter. Wikidemo (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You made me aware of your suspicions. And I used my own judgement. You cannot start to claim this person's point of view has no validity because he is a sockpuppet. Harrassing good faith users for helping other new users while using their own judgment does not excuse. I will continue using my own judgment re this article while awaiting to see re your allegations, please let me know when there is a result, but the BLP issues remain whatever and certainly cannot be superseded even by proven sock allegations. J Stalin has to be our first concern in this issue, he to me is more important than any of us or our wikipedia politics, remember that he might be looking for a job on Monday morning. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet's edits are presumptively invalid. It is not a BLP issue - he has a drug selling conviction, the fact is part of his public personality, it is reported in the newspaper, and he promotes it on his own album. Keeping the sockpuppets away from his article is the best service we can do. Wikidemo (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not a sockpuppet and I disagree with you re J Stalin. I suggest we stick to debating BLP and drugs and J Stalin and avoid talk of sockpuppetry, though this will only be valid anyway if the article survives BLP, if it does I suggest we continue the dialogue, in the meantime I wont be editing the article at all, though I would suggest that if in the meantime you could prove through a third party source (not a record cover etc) that it is a part of his CV, if you like, a la Bob Marley, Peter Tosh or Pete Doherty, then I would be open to changing my mind, as its Stalin's reputation that is what is at issue here. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me!? You are warning ME for calling you on "bad faith"? You have accused me of being in bad faith dozens of times, and of disruptive edits, and of sockpuppetry, and meatpuppetry, and I think vandalism, canvassing, and I don't know what else. Thanks for biting me for trying to dialog. But you have a lot of audacity to make the outlandish claims you do. I'm just another user you are apparently harassing, please stop.Icamepica (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I certainly am. Your incivility is one among the many problems. Tit-for-tat accusations are rather lame. But so is disruptive editing. Wikidemo (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

back it up with some diffs!Icamepica (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake

Sorry but I added one too many colons in my reply on the EL page. I was replying to para, not you. I corrected it now, so I hope you will remove your comment beneath mine. Thanks. 2005 (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I have come to expect intelligent civil edits out of you and would normally give you the benefit of the doubt. I've had a testy wiki-day dealing with sockpuppets and edit wars as you can see above. Thanks for mentioning it. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Down the rabbit hole....

It seems that Stinging P (talk · contribs · logs · block log) has now been indefinitely blocked along with Belicia (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for incivility and sockpuppetry. I'd been keeping my eye on the latter for a while, but it looks like User:Morven noted a connection with Boomgaylove in the block summary. How closely they're related I don't know, but it looks we may have to chalk up one in your column here :) --jonny-mt 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Squeak

Welcome to the world of the SqueakAttacked. One may note that you join a long list of people who become harassed, name-called, and personally attacked for the capital offense of daring to disagree with Squeakbox. This user's behaviors have been duly noted many times and nothing ever done to permanently fix the problem. For that matter, a highly distinguished littany of blocks seem to have no effect either. His mentoree was indef blocked/banned even for the same behaviours. Anyway, best of luck to you in that. Not to fear, the name-calling only gets worse... Right now, you're "only" at the "troll" level. Wait until you get to "rude brat" and "twat" and "Nazi scum" and then the hints/allegations of pedophilia. Have fun with that! • VigilancePrime • • • 05:12 (UTC) 26 Feb '08

"Warnings" from a sockpuppet

preserved for record but grouped under heading to avoid implication of legitimacy

Warning

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not be a hypocrit by accusing other users of being disruptive for claiming you have bad faith after doing so to them beforehand as you did on here.Icamepica (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack warning from a sockpuppet? How quaint. Wikidemo (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd warning

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-Do not move my comments to where you see fit! Stop it!Icamepica (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd Warning

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. Please stop removing my comments.Icamepica (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW

Hi WD, just for the record, Icamepica reported you at AIV, (diff) :-) it has been removed. R. Baley (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he/she is headed for a flame-out in the next few minutes given the increasing frequency and desperation of potshot attacks and random wikigaming. Wikidemo (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

, please never remove peoples comments again.Icamepica (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)