Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:43, 19 September 2008

If you wish to start a new topic, please do so at THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

don't delete my page about listing the Bemani pocket games on there own pages

don't

Personal Agenda vandalism

User:Ludwigs2 is vandalizing Template:Sexual orientation on the grounds of his own personal agenda. There is controversy of what is considered a "sexual orientation" and what is considered a "sexual identity", for example asexuality. In the recent past the template was separated into two separate listing "sexual orientations" and "sexual identity". In an effort to remain neutral i have combined the two sections as "sexual orientations and identities", leaving the decision up to the reader and not taking support on one particular view point or another. What makes me come to the conclusion that User:Ludwigs2 has an underlying agenda is that he was the one who created the two separate listings, previously everything was all under "sexual orientations" then he made the separate "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" sections, putting his view point above others, and being un-neutral. And now he is reverting my combination edit, the one with "sexual orientations and identities", to a more recent edition of his, which only includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, completely removing all reference of asexuality, zoosexuality, and other sexual orientations and identities. I personally think he has a personal agenda to not allow these other forms of sexual expressions to even be in the same listing, because as i said, all i originally did was combine the two listings that he create in the first place, because there was, as i said, controversy about certain terms being a sexual orientation or sexual identity. Like i said, his previous edit puts one opinion above the other, which does not hold a neutral point of view.

• This was the edit is similar to how the template originally appeared:
• This is User:Ludwigs2's "sexual orientations" and "sexual identity" edit, with separate listings:
• This is my "sexual orientations and identities", the one made in an effort to remain neutral, the only difference between mine and his is i combined the groups:
• And this is User:Ludwigs2's retaliation edit, were he removes every sexual orientation and identity, only leaving heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, which intern contradicts his previous edit:

I have already reverted his vandalisms in the past and was temporary banned for reverting them. I am not interested in being banned again for doing the right thing so could you please take care of this issue, you can further read the current talk, here, and gain more incite on the issue. Thanx for your time. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You should start a request for comment on the template talk page to get the opinions of more editors. I'm not seeing anything I would describe as vandalism; a bit of edit-warring maybe. If the edit-warring gets out of hand then admins can start thinking about blocking but otherwise this a content dispute and can only be solved by discussion. CIreland (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

House of Lords Act 1999

Hi. I noticed you have been trying to do some format fixes on the House of Lords Act 1999 article. Are you trying to remove the extra spacing at the top of the page? If so, it seems to be a fault on the {{Infobox UK Legislation}} template as it affects every article it appears on. I have tried fixing the template previously without success, but I will make another attempt when I have time later today. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to fix that but, as you can see, I too had no luck. CIreland (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of CENSEI and Croctotheface

Not that I'm looking to change the ruling as it is clear both users were edit warring and both seem to be aware of the 3RR, so the blocks were certainly justified. I just have a question about the content of the ruling. In the explanation for CENSEI's block you said that "Parts of the reverts have a possible BLP defence", but can the BLP defense be used on an article that is about a person that has been dead for 8 years? Bob Casey, Sr. died in 2000 and the content that was removed seems to be solely about Casey... I know Misplaced Pages allows some fudge room on BLP for people that died recently, but 8 years seems a bit much to me. --Bobblehead 05:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, when CENSEI brought up BLP and Gamaliel seemed to imply that BLP was at least a plausible issue I assumed the subject was living and didn't check for a death date. However, apart from Casey, the material in question (the bit partially sourced to dailyhowler.com) also attributes statements to "Conventions organizers". When I said "possible BLP defence" I had in mind Casey and the unnamed organizers. Regardless, even were Casey living, the BLP defence seems pretty weak to me. CIreland (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. Since the "convention organizers" were unnamed, I'd assumed BLP wasn't necessarily applicable to them. I'd also made the assumption based on your spelling of "defence" that you probably weren't American, so weren't familiar with American politics so probably weren't aware that Casey was deceased. --Bobblehead 05:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How often do we see this happen? The light that burns twice as bright....

Answer Two steps forward, one step back ;)   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Thank you for the protection to G. Simon Harak (19121*DN (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

GOUSA

Thanks for looking at Grand Orient of the United States. Were all of those three criticisms beyond the pale? I originally raised a point about the founders "making fraudulent claims", which I'd deleted.

Isn't the claim that they have fewer lodges than the organisationclaims a legitimate criticism/question? The second point about "GOOFUS" is embarassing and doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, but is it really affected by BLP? (I'm glad it's gone, though.) The third point about not taking "obligations" (the Masonic term for oaths) seriously is close to the bone and would have to be carefully worded, but surely a legitimate criticism?

Any way thank you for looking at this.

JASpencer (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that anything sourced only to masonicinfo.com should not be included. It's a personal website with a self-confessed "Anti-Masonry" approach. CIreland (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

masonicinfo is actually very pro-Masonry, and the webmaster is a freemason. It's just a different, Anglo-American type of freemasonry that it's for. Oddly enough there are some very scandalous claims about anti-masonic types. JASpencer (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Regardless, it remains a personal website; anything controversial needs to be sourced to something with newspaper standard reliability - and obviously that's doubly true for a biographical details. CIreland (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for your attention on this. JASpencer (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a highly regarded webpage, cited or linked to on many lodge and grand lodge webpages... and cited in the books and blogs of noted (ie published) masonic scholars. It should be considered a reliable source, even if it is self-published. Blueboar (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

Hi, thank you for placing the semi protection on Jeremy Brett. At the same time I requested protection for that article, I also requested the same for Gary Cooper which has been subjected to far worse tendentious editing by the same user over a much longer period of time. Another admin denied this request saying that it was a "content dispute", and although I pointed out that this was not the case (here) it was denied just the same. Well it wasn't really denied, it was just kind of closed without any reply to my comment. I'm confused by this, as I've very rarely made this type of request and I don't understand why this happened, if it was an oversight or something like that. Would you mind please taking a look at the edit history for Gary Cooper. I'm sorry if this isn't the correct protocol as I'm not sure how to dispute a protection decision, but if you point me in the right direction it would be appreciated. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I put a note on Stifle (talk · contribs)'s talk page. CIreland (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary Cooper etc.

Hi. Rossrs (talk · contribs) dropped a note on my talk page after I responded to his protection request for Jeremy Brett. Because I had agreed to semi-protect the page in response to persistent editing by likely socks of HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rossrs wanted me to look at your decision to decline protection of Gary Cooper. Obviously I'm not going to overturn your decision but I would ask you to look again at the history of Gary Cooper and compare the edits by 92.11.xx.xx - 92.13.xx.xx with the MO of previous socks of HarveryCarter. CIreland (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the IP is adding vandalism. But I won't get in your way if you think differently. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not saying it is vandalism, and I was clear on that point from the beginning. A banned user is not supposed to be making any edits, and when they not only edit, but tendentiously edit that is problem. We may as well not ban people if we're going to tolerate their continued presence as anons. I've never considered this a content dispute or a simple case of vandalism. Rossrs (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrick M. McCarthy

I was looking at it from the AFD point of view of "what did the community say", which I read at "no consensus", basically I wasn't even looking at content, just arguments. If you see BLP issues with content, by all means do whatever is necessary to ensure compliance. I will not object to any action you take and will support your judgment. MBisanz 08:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)