Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:29, 19 July 2008

For older history, check as well as the archives.

Re:

Help

Hy there (again). I need your help, please. I found the following: Category:Caesar's legions and resolved to fix it. My reasons were/are the following: 1st) It is simply a enormous over-kill to sort some of the Roman legions by their commander (most of these legions had more than one famous commander - that's why I honestly think this action was simply foolish). 2nd) The Category:Roman legions was and still is the proper place to sort every and all Roman legions. 3rd) If we begin to sort the legions by their commanders we will end up with dozens upon dozens of largely useless categories which will list many legions several times (Ceasar's legions, Antony's legions, Octavian's legions, Galba's legions, Vespassian's legion, Constatine's legions, etc ad absurdum).

I looked at the history of the category "Caesar's legions" and found out that this was the recent creation of a single user. I checked his contributions and discovered that he was also the one who sorted the legions in the new category (no big surprise, and honest, if too-eager work). However I'm simply unable to understand what steps I have to follow to propose the deletion (obliteration) of the category. I read some of the pages but to be honest I was unable to make head or tails with them. Could you help me? Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CFD#How to use this page should get you started. --jpgordon 05:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone (I'm guessing that it was you; in the case that it wasn't you thanks anyway) deleted the category already. Everything seems to be fine now. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't me, but you're welcome! --jpgordon 15:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hy there (yet again). I don't know the proper steps or place to report this (and I don't have any hard evidence, just a huge number of suspicious edits). We have a heated discussion at the talkpage of Roman Empire and I find it somewhat strange that a couple of brand new users just coming out of the blue are suddenly are using the same arguments, to defend the same POV, all at the same time, and without any prior edits anywhere else. I don't know if this is lawful, unlawful, against Wiki policy or not, but could you (or somebody allowed to do so) check out User:Goremite, User:Molot Gorla, User:Cody7777777, and User:193.227.242.2 (or show me where I could and should report this) ? I honestly believe that some of these accounts are sock puppets (seriously, I think that all these accounts are sockpuppets of yet another cautious user). If my request is considered abusive please tell me so. I advise to check out the talkpage of the article the edits and accounts of everybody (especially my account). In other words: trust no one, especially users with nice words (no one can carry gifts in Misplaced Pages :). Flamarande (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP would be the place. --jpgordon 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you (could you take a look if I'm presenting the case in the proper form?). Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I presented the case, but I'm not sure if I have done it correctly. Flamarande (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial‎ GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Holocaust denial‎ and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages of a few other editors and a related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What a giggle. It appears we were adding the same cite at the same time. It took me a long time to figure our what had happened in the edit conflict.--Cberlet (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I was assuming you posted it on the talk page so someone other than yourself would post the cite to your publication. --jpgordon 05:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. If you can, take a stab at it (I'll help fix it afterwards if you wish, although leads aren't my strong point either!) or let me know when somebody else has expanded it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bologna Sandwiches

I wanted to discuss some of the problems you had with the Bologna Sandwich article.

First I wanted to thank you for calling me on the condiments: mayo and mustard are certainly not put on all bologna sandwiches, just mine! I knew I was asking for it when I wrote that. They are common though, I think.

OK, about the more serious concerns. I think the article should exist because the sandwich is very common and therefore relevant. Six million bologna sandwiches made with Oscar Meyer bologna are eaten every day. And, of course, there are other brands that must make up millions more. I'm sure all those prisoners don't get Oscar Meyer bologna! Even though the topic is very mundane, by sheer numbers the sandwich is an aspect of many people's daily lives. Information should be presented on the topic from economic, culinary, and health perspectives. I began to address those perspectives in the article.

As for the reference on the cancer study, I have clarified that the reference is for all luncheon meats. They all have similiar ingredients, so I think the researchers were justified in considering them in the aggregate. I hope that resolves your concerns.

My second reference was meant only for the last sentence of the paragraph, and in all fairness I think that's pretty clear. Judging by the comment you left, I think your "citation needed" really belongs after the first sentence about the popularity and famousness of Oscar Meyer Bologna. However, I think the truth of the sentence is self-evident to anyone from the U.S.. It seems as appropriate as putting a "citation needed" on a sentence in an article on basketball that says it is a game played on a court with a ball.

So could you please adjust/remove your citation needed tags, or let me know why you think they still belong? Thanks! Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Me, it was always white bread, baloney, and mayo...which had to be Hellman's/Best Foods. Mustard would have been a sacrilege, and possibly have led to a temper tantrum; I had not much equanimity as a child. "Self-evident to anyone in the USA" isn't useful as a source. It's certainly not self-evident to me that Oscar Meyer Bologna is the most famous and best selling brand. Besides that, Misplaced Pages is international, and a huge number of our readers will never have encountered American brands and American advertising, and they deserve the benefit of verifiability as much as anyone. If the topic is so mundane, Misplaced Pages won't be the first place it's written about, and there will be reliable sources somewhere...I think you can get it up to the quality of Peanut butter and jelly sandwich with a bit of work. (Don't you love the way bologna curls up when it's fried?) --jpgordon 06:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me??? White bread???? Mayo???? Bologna????? Don't tell me you eat your pastrami with white bread and mayo??????? I now have lost all respect for you. And I'm nauseous. OrangeMarlin 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I'm talking past tense here. Way past tense. I think it was 5th grade or so when I transitioned from baloney sandwiches to canned chili as my meal of choice. --jpgordon 06:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not had a fried baloney sandwich, though I will have to try it, if just once. I try to eat a healthy diet, so I don't eat bologna regularly anymore. But I did like them as a kid. OK. So I changed "the best selling and most popular brand" to "a best selling and popular brand". I have also removed the citation needed tags. I'll continue trying to make the article worthy of a separate article. OK? Diderot's dreams (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. But you still have to back up things like "best selling" with data; and if there's unsourced information in the article, the tags will go right back. That's how all Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to work. (I don't think I've had any bologna anything in 40 years.) --jpgordon 05:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

July arb stuff

I'd like to remind you that 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting (for ages) on the discretionary sanctions wording - they can be closed once voted on, sometime soon hopefully. Kirill has already posted the 3.1 version for voting on the requests page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note in case you missed it. You've done one vote arb-clarification done (Martinphi-SA and Pseudoscience), but one more to go (Diguwaren) needing your vote here. Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just a reminder (info-byte) that all proposals on the Yorkshirian case pass - 1 close vote here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Need Some Help

I emailed Wikimedia about some Oversight, but it isn't deleted. Can you permanently remove this please? -- VegitaU (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was doing it just as you wrote. --jpgordon 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Thanks a LOT! -- VegitaU (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I need help again -- VegitaU (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

I don't doubt that you've seen it, but I'd like to formally point you towards motion on the C68-FM-SV case. The continuing delay, resulting from refusal to arbitrate, of this case is getting beyond a joke and I personally find it unacceptable. Many in the community are as a result of this delay calling Arbcom's very existence into question. The refusal to come to a conclusion, echoing the MM case amongst others, demonstrates that Arbcom is no longer willing to deal with long-term problematic behaviour and is giving a free pass to those involved. What is worse is that even the vote to dismiss is being delayed. Please vote there as soon as possible, because the community needs some kind of closure and to prolong the case further is a disservice to the many editors who have spent time preparing the case. I'm posting this to your talk page as you are a sitting arbitrator, and I will be doing similar on the others'. Thank you, --78.145.83.124 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Who is speaking? --jpgordon 20:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not about to post personal details, if that's what you mean (?). Besides, what does it matter who I am? --78.145.83.124 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter what your opinion is, then? --jpgordon 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You have the right to ignore questions, but not so much to respond with rhetorical questions that run counter to the standard wiki-approach. (FWIW, I'm not the IP.) --Relata refero (disp.) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, I have entirely the right to ignore anonymous opinions; they are of no value. --jpgordon 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The above statement merely restates the problem, namely that you assign no value to an opinion if 'anonymous'. As I have already pointed out, this is markedly inappropriate in an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, particularly from an account that is, to my surprise, apparently on ArbCom. Further, I think you should re-examine your somewhat contrived and artificial distinction between "anonymous" and "pseudonymous". --Relata refero (disp.) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with anonymous people editing articles; the identity of someone editing an article is irrelevant, because of Misplaced Pages's policies regarding verifiability, NPOV, and so on. The wiki-political opinions of anonymous IPs do not fall under that rubric, and there's as much reason to attend to random anonymous opinions as there is to attend to scribblings on bathroom walls. --jpgordon 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no logic to that. On WP we are supposed to consider the quality of opinions and arguments rather than the history of the commenter, regardless of where on the project those comments are made, on article talk or in projectspace. Fortunately, one does not require a contribs history to parse simple English. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. If you want to take guidance from random unidentified and unidentifiable strangers, feel free. --jpgordon 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do. (For example, a good proportion of ArbCom is "unidentifiable".) And you shouldn't choose to ignore and insult them. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. --jpgordon 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hooray. Now I can die happy. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And this would be the reason I strongly dislike our WP:SOCK policy's exemption for segregating edits to avoid harassment. I could probably block under the privatemusings ruling against segregating edits for policy debates, but seeing as he's posted to several arbs pages, and none of you have seen fit to block him, I'll just drop the matter for the time being. MBisanz 06:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of aspects of WP:SOCK I dislike; I firmly believe in one person, one account. --jpgordon 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that also apply to all the parties in the current Cla68/FeloniousMonk/SlimVirgin case? Cla68 (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My position on the use of multiple accounts has always been far more restrictive than Misplaced Pages policy. --jpgordon 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The detail in the elephant

The Geogre/Connolley RFAR was not supposed to be about Giano... and yet Kirill has added as a FoF an extensive collection of Giano quotations, which he describes as "public attacks against fellow editors". Please note that, pushing the case further over towards being about Giano after all, Kirill had previously offered the same context-free collection in the workshop as "The elephant in the room". I beg arbitrators to study the context Carcharoth supplies in "The detail in the elephant" before they vote. It makes the elephant look rather different. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC).

Vandalism

Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Notifying ArbCom of two emergency desysoppings

Hey there. As per this discussion at AN, we thought the ArbCom should be notified that Zoe (talk · contribs) and RickK (talk · contribs) were both emergency desysopped as they have both been inactive for years, and an unknown user demonstrated that their passwords were easily guessable. I'm sure this is uncontroversial and probably does not need ArbCom's approval, but we thought the Committee should know anyway. Thanks! --14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront neutrality dispute

Yo Jpgordon, I am trying to have the npov dispute on the Stormfront article resolved, and I would appreciate it if you would care to weigh in here. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologise for incorrectly voting on the Arcom re CSCWEM. I thought that as I has made a statement under the Any other user, that I was also entitled to vote. I was incorrect in this assumption, and will read the ARBCOM guidelines before making any other edits in ths area. Thanks for swiftly clearing up my cockup. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, I kinda figured it was like that. Thanks for understanding. --jpgordon 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb

Your encouraging John to resign sends a disastrous message. Read more about it here. Repent and reform.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)