Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 14 March 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3

Credible Source?

Regarding a Tony_Rezko edit.

ABC News article

Article photo

The ABC News article talks directly about Tony Rezko's involvement in the Obama residence deal. Does it sufficiently constitute a credible 2nd source? Interested in hearing your thoughts. Ddweb (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup

It's easy to convince people you're not a kook. Why not tell SA that you know that the Cold Fusion supporters are wrong, that their "peer reviewed" publications are garbage, that there is obviously a cadre of perverse people trying to push their "cold fusion investment" garbage into the encyclopeda, and that it's got to be stressful to try to counteract that, but you're not on their side, and that you would like to work with him to make the article reflect the reality that Cold Fusion isn't Cold or Fusion. You do believe those things, right? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Poupon, in fact I do. I agree with you that there are fanatics who are clinging to Cold fusion as our best and only hope to save our planet - a notion I reject. However I wasn't aware that the European Journal of Physics was considered garbage but I'm willing to be convinced. You'll find that my edits are pretty much concentrated on making sure that that one source isn't unfairly deprecated. I would relent if can be successfully impugned. Ronnotel (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You agree, of course, that the vast majority of scientists consdier Mosier-Boss and Szpak raving kookasauruses, right? You've read the New Scientist article? Why not pair "It's not quite accurate that they've never been well published" with "However, it's obvious that everyone discounted that publication also." You fought so hard over this teeny tiny little nothing that you lost sight of the big picture - we've got an article that says basically says that the US government believes in cold fusion protected and locked in mainspace. As a final note, it's not just people saying it's our only hope to save the planet, it's people defrauding old ladies out of investment monies. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Poop, I am all astonishment. I had no idea that I was dealing with a savant. In this comment, you state your intent to familiarize yourself with the ongoing mediation on Cold fusion. You spend a total of eight minutes crafting two edits to said mediation, and then less than an hour after starting your review, you happen across my above edit. One minute after your previous edit, you have correctly identified the obscure article that I had obscurely referred to, tracked it down, read and comprehended it, and apparently sampled scientific consensus to pronounce its authors raving kookasaurases. Your intellect beggars belief. Either that, or you're an obvious sock puppet of SA. Ronnotel (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we could go with consensus and much discussion earlier, which SA (or you) did not participate in, and work together to improve the lead -- instead of using divisive tactics such as this. Your uncanny support of SA is mind-boggling. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to accuse me of something come out and say it. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Of wading in the water, splashing about to make a scene and nothing more? Sure. Of being a SA-apologist? Sure. Of not assuming good faith? Absolutely. Your forum shopping and the refactoring of comments, with explicit notices from other administrators and editors to cease that activity, clearly shows that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Do you intend to? PouponOnToast (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Once I have been convinced your train of thought is parallel to that of SA and not single-threaded as it appears to be. That you and SA don't use the same IP comes as no surprise. I already knew that SA was not a fool. Ronnotel (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask that you resign your admin bit when you apologize to me, as well, at this point. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

POT, you are not generating sympathy with these remarks. Forced apologies are always bad; do not ask for them. Jehochman 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking for sympathy. Ronnotel failed to assume good faith that two contributors could agree on something without being identical to eachother. He was incivil via saracasm in both his report, and his comments to me. This is conduct unbecoming an editor of this encyclopedia, and it will need to change if Ronnotel intends to continue to contribute here. One step he could use to demonstrate that he intends to comply with our rules on civility would be to apologize to those he was incivil to. Another would be to stop being incivil. I have seen no evidence of either. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

POT, you need to stop this now. Your behavior is doing more to convince me that you may actually be a disruptive account than anything Ronnotel has said. Jehochman 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if PoT hasn't been blocked twice only a few days ago for disruptive editing. If he continues to press the matter and continue to disrupt discussions and use WP as a soapbox, I see no reason why PoT cannot receive another stern warning. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

PoT - is your purpose here to collect sysop bits or something? How many threats is that you've made in the last few weeks? Three? Four?? - Alison 16:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was just blocked and unblocked for calling another editor a "trolling fuck" and for this incivility. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And he's "retired."

"Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all " Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA Card

Dear Ronnotel, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (29/5/5).

I cannot thank you enough for you're support on my RFA. And now that I am a sysop, I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — Chetblong 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for List of CEP Vendors

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of CEP Vendors. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bardcom (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You've made it to my coveted quotes page. You've made me laugh out loud with one of your recent posts and have now been added here. Please take this as a high compliment for two reasons: 1. I only add one or two quotes per month at best, and related 2. It's hard to make me laugh. Great work, and happy editing! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. Ronnotel (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pgsylv

User:Pgsylv, who you blocked for 3RR is back making what appear to be the same edits as he was blocked for 3RRing, and seems to be leaving hostile edit summaries. Another user filed a WQA here and I thought I should contact you, as the blocking admin. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm - he doesn't seem to be revert warring as he was before and while not exactly civil, perhaps you can look past his edit summary. At this point I suggest you engage and try to resolve the issue through discussion. Please assume the presence of a belly button. Ronnotel (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This was more of a courtesy note. I'm not expecting you to jump back in and block him again, but when someone 3RRs, gets blocked, and then jumps back in with hostility (and his edits may not be the same sort of edit-warring, but it's the same issue he's reverting on), if I were the blocking admin I'd like to hear about it. Your comments are welcome at his talk page or the WQA, if you'd like to add anything. Note that since I'm responding to a WQA complaint, civility is not something I'm really going to want to immediately "look past." --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up. For now I'm going to lay low but let me know if it gets worse. Ronnotel (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0

In my view, a prerequisite to believing that he won't re-offend is for him to acknowledge the severity of his actions. As yet, he hasn't done so and, as much as it saddens me given his productive history, I can't support an unblock (he's also indicated that he doesn't intend to return to the project). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree. But as my objectivity is hopelessly clouded I was hoping to foist the decision onto someone else. I deeply appreciate your support in this matter and I now consider it SEP (someone else's problem). Ronnotel (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, there should really be a WP:SEP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of violating WP:CANVAS, I note that Somebody Else's Problem field is nom'd for AfD. I've suggested that it be turned into WP:SEP. Ronnotel (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) decided to appeal his indefinite ban to the Arbitration Committee. No action by them, but I have looked into it and he admits he was wrong. I am going to change his indefinite block to a month. Fred Talk 16:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up. Ronnotel (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Demo

I am not sure if I have done it right, but I have add my name to the request about Demo.]

Yes, that looks fine. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I reformatted a bit and moved to what I think is the proper location. Feel free to revert if you prefer it the other way. Ronnotel (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

“For those of us who are multi-lingual, it is very handy to know what the term for these series of events in Hindi is as well. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)”

“Too bad. What is your reasoning for suggesting that "it is hardly necessary to put in the translation" - it is an India related article and English and Hindi enjoy official status of the Federal Govt - while languages like Marathi and Bengali are official languages of different states but not of the Federal Govt. I am putting it right back. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) “

This clearly gives the impresion it’s a translation, not an alterantiv name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_5#Hindi_text

“Correct me if I am wrong. This is what Misplaced Pages policy states: "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but names from languages which do not use a Latin alphabet, like Chinese and Russian, do." We have stated clearly in this article that there is no commonly used English name for these series of events. So based on the policy, shouldn't the transliteration of the name in the original language be used? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)” This states that it is a translation, not an alternative title. ]

RfC Filed

Just to keep you abreast - after having tried reasoning with you multiple times, I have filed an RfC asking for suspension of your administrator privileges from desi-related articles for a period of 6 months which you can use to introspect and learn about different cultures and refrain from attacking other religions. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

]

Please check out my recent addition to Algorithmic trading

Ronnotell and User:Hu12

Please check out my recent addition to Algorithmic trading dif

I actually inserted the text from an advertisement into the article. This is obviously sensitive and should be checked in any case, but I think it makes a key point in the article that no other source could make as well. I'm not trying to push Dow Jones, just document the content of the article.

Thanks for any help.

Smallbones (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, I saw the same ad campaign and I agree it's an interesting facet that illustrates one type of algo trading. However, I'd be happier if we were quoting a reliable source rather than an ad. It seems like we are taking DJ's word about being two seconds faster, and that the two seconds was actionable. I work in high speed trading, and I'm somewhat dubious about the claims in the ad. Its hard to measure data feed lag accurately. Just my immediate feedback.Ronnotel (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted, I'll leave it in and look for something that says something similar. (might be hard) If you want to take it out please do. It's the claim, more than the accuracy that makes the point - but then that starts to get into OR. Thanks Smallbones (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the quote, but kept the reference (i.e. toned it down) trying to follow your suggestion. Smallbones (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult editing articles in this space because it can be hard to find reliable sources that discuss the latest developments such as this. While strictly speaking someone could come along and challenge an ad as non-notable, I think you are doing the best that can be done with the available resources. Ronnotel (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for giving your support to my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, or if you have any handy tips for a freshly-hatched admin, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/DemolitionMan

The RfC looks very legitimate and there are obviously serious concerns with his editing. I'd like to see the RfC run for some time longer - it's not like the admin noticeboards, discussions here can take some time to get attention and they often run for months at a slow pace. The 1RR restriction on all Desi related articles looks like a good proposal, however RfC decisions are considered non binding, so can I suggest you take the proposed community 1RR to AN? The proposal should be something along the lines of "DemolitionMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per-page-per-week on all articles related to Desi. Should he break this limitation, he may be subject to blocks of upto one week by any administrator." - that would work well IMO. Is that any good for you? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I appreciate the time you took to review. Having never asked for a community sanction before, I was a little unsure how to approach this. I'll let it run a couple more days (but I seriously doubt any light will go off in anyone's head in that time) and then take it to AN. Ronnotel (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I don't see a need to wait any longer before proposing the community sanction - it can run concurrently with the RfC. If the sanction is accepted, then that would probably sort many of the problems that caused the RfC to be filed in the first place and may make it moot, but it would be good to get a few more opinions on the other problematic behaviour that has been quoted. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I had specifically volunteered for a one revert limit only on this article and not on all Desi-related articles. I don't see a resolution passed which limits me to one edit for all desi articles but your comment on my page and the community board seem to specify otherwise. Please clarify and if necessary make the requisite changes on the community board. Thanks. Btw, I still see you as targeting me solely for my views though I now seem to think that your intentions might be right. I don't really know what to make of your actions to be quite honest. I shall be observing your neutrality for the next two months as well and will use my discretion to take action as I deem fit. DemolitionMan (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this comment earlier. The consensus view was that you have been disruptive based on your POV. It's common in these situations to extend the restriction to cover all articles to which the POV would likely have an impact. As I said before, if you believe others are behaving inappropriately, feel free to use the dispute resolution system. However, I haven't seen them resorting to behavior in which you have engaged - sock-puppetry, name calling, assuming bad faith, etc. There was a minor assumption of bad faith on the part of F&F, however I also note he apologized for it and self-reverted when it was called out. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to accomplish on Indian Rebellion of 1857. I have yet to see you sway a single editor to a view point to which they did not already subscribe nor has a single edit of yours stood up to consensus. I fear you will continue to be disappointed until you figure out how to do that. As to your most recent edits, yes, your second change would in fact be a violation and I thank you for self-reverting. You will find that WP:1RR will limit your ability to edit in controversial areas of the article, which is what it was intended to do. Ronnotel (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Edit warring

I've been treating the straight up removals of the Rezko image with the Clinton image from the Rezko page without comment by IPs as vandalism. Ever since the image was added a different IP comes through on a fairly regular basis and removes the image without discussion, so that's why I've been treating it as vandalism. --Bobblehead 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is controversial and simply removing it is not an act of obvious vandalism. In this situation, I suggest you exercise caution and discuss the issue rather than revert. I'll step in and protect the page is there is much more back and forth but I'd rather not. Ronnotel (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Bobblehead 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for keeping things under control at Tony Rezko. I had yet to read WP:DBTN, and considered myself to be somewhat of a newcomer. It seems that the controversial subjects bring a lot of new users into the site, but, in fairness, an IP address does not directly indicate that a user is new. Corey Salzano (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, that's what admins do. I only started watching this article because I live in Wilmette and noticed when someone added him to the page. The way I determined that User:99.147.17.156 is new was to look at his contribution history. Ronnotel (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please sir, may I have rollback?

Bowl held out plaintively, with winsome expression. I've been rolling back vandalism old-school style. I hear there's a better way. It would be a nice present for reaching one year as an active editor here (and only being called a "wiki-fascist" once!) --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. Ronnotel (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you are a most gentlemanly admin. I will use it with care, I promise. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Ronnotel, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

Your point is heeded and i apologize for getting side tracked. Hoping in the future this page can be resemble an Encloypedia, instead of a continual POV pushing page. Rockybiggs (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Retail Invester

An admin already deleted it, so it's a moot point now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I aware, we do delete advertising in userspace or in article space. If the user wants to change username then they can, it shouldn't impact on it unless they try to recreate it in mainspace like it was. Woody (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

If its not DemoMan, it is user:Desione, who has now moved the (term) page you created to another one, which I'm sure is not legal. I feel Desione will need some kind of constraint just as DemoMan did. He's continuing to make unhelpful edits on the Indian Rebellion page and trolling the talk page. Please advise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He discussed it here. I didn't see any issue with it but feel free to register an objection - everything is reversible. User:DemolitionMan's history was much more problematic - at this I point I urge you to continue to engage and seek consensus with Desione. While not ideal, I see much more willingness for constructive collaboration on the page than in recent months. Ronnotel (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. My concern was just that it not become a POV fork. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I see you've put the "(term)" back. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Josuquis

Is it possible for you to rein in this British POV pusher? Just look at his edits - almost all are India-centric and pushing the British POV at all costs. I shall be filing an RfC against him shortly. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Holding a POV is not a punishable offense; violating WP policy to do so is. If you have valid complaints, then feel free to lodge them at the appropriate venue (include diffs). But if they aren't valid, don't be surprised if the reviewing admin takes a dim view of frivolous abuse of the dispute resolution system, a disruptive tactic for which you have already been warned. Ronnotel (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ip address

Its the ip of the hub through which my connection is going. I forgot to login sorry. Desione (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

nothing to be sorry for, just wanted to make sure I understood who was who. That's all. Ronnotel (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

can the ip address be removed and replaced with my username for clarity if possible? Desione (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. While that would happen automatically for regular user change requests requests, I don't know if it can be done for anon ip addresses. You might want to check at WP:CHU but it's probably not necessary. Ronnotel (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Users reverting blindly on Indian Rebellion of 1857 page

can you do something to prevent users from reverting blindly without any reasoning. thanks Desione (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have protected the page. I would ask you to stop reverting as well until this is agreed on the talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IP personal attacks

You probably saw them already on my talk page, but I decided to answer their questions, since they seem so persistent in asking them. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The only advice I can give is that being an admin is like being the one who always shows up at the gun fight packing a knife. Think carefully about whether you really want to go through the RfA process just to become even more of a target. Good luck. Ronnotel (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User Desione

As your aware user Desione is the same as port 63.82.71.139. This user is guilty of 4 reverts on Indian Rebellion of 1857, can you please advise if you can issue a block on this user, or please advise if i must take this to a Administration board.--Rockybiggs (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I was aware of the issue however my response in this case was to protect the page. However he wasn't the only one edit warring. You can file a report at WP:AN/3RR but it will probably be turned down because he has not been issued a warning to stop. However, I'd much rather have this discussed and a solution arrived at jointly. Ronnotel (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but i don`t think negotiation is in their vocabulary--Rockybiggs (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF :) Ronnotel (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan

I have been looking in on Indian Rebellion of 1857 since your WP:AN post a couple of weeks ago. I haven't noticed any kind of improvement in the behaviour of User:DemolitionMan, as most recently shown by his tendentious and vindictive post on the talk page of that article. What are your thoughts on revisiting the idea of a topic ban for this user? Leithp 08:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also see comments made regarding yourself Ronnotel Comment--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Leithp, I must admit it's difficult to find anything in his behavior that can be defended. He remains locked in a mindset of WP:BATTLE although he seems to have at least toned down the animus that is overtly racial. If you would like to seek a modification to his editing restriction I would not object. Ronnotel (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he should be banned from all editing for a three months and user:Desione should be restricted to 1RR on India-related articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that there is a difference between holding a POV and acting disruptively to further it. While D1 brings his POV into the argument, I have not yet seen him do it in a way that suggests a casual disregard for WP policies in the way the DM has in the past. The reason that DM is in the position he is in is because he chose augment his edit warring with abusive sock-puppetry and vile personal attacks. While D1 may edit aggressively, he is not the only one doing so and I doubt there would be community support to place him under a restriction at this point. I commend F&F in particular for bringing erudition into the debate. His focus on citing reliable sources has elevated the discussion and I think we have made progress. I note that DM and D1 have recently begun citing more sources as well. IMO that's the only way this issue is going to be resolved. Ronnotel (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)