Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:51, 10 August 2010

This is Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Misplaced Pages vandalism information
(abuse log)

Low to moderate level of vandalism

3.72 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 10:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Content removal

Dear Mendaliv, You removed a huge piece of text from my entry Judith Dupre. I understand that you were trying to help avoid a conflict of interest. However, the sentences that you removed were one, true and two, took me hours to craft. I am new to Misplaced Pages, and do not understand how to add citations. Every single item on my page is widely, hugely verifiable. If it is possible to restore the text that you removed, I would appreciate it. I would also appreciate help in citing items on my page. Thanks, Judith Dupre Judithdupre (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Judith. Please refer to the page history of Judith Dupré (here). I didn't delete the text to which you refer, though frankly I agree with the editor who removed it. The content of which you speak (which was removed with this edit) strikes me as difficult to support as written, even with references. Such a paragraph would need to be entirely rephrased to directly attribute such descriptions of your work in order to comply with Misplaced Pages's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV).

With respect, as this is an article about yourself, may I suggest stepping away from editing it? While I understand that you are an accomplished author, it can be extraordinarily difficult to write autobiographical Misplaced Pages articles, and Misplaced Pages's editorial guidelines themselves strongly discourage the practice (see WP:AUTO). I'm not saying you shouldn't have anything to do with the article, as you're very much invited to participate in discussion at Talk:Judith Dupré, the article's talk page.

I don't want to discourage your participation- quite the opposite. Misplaced Pages always needs more experienced editors across a wide variety of subject areas. And your personal knowledge would be invaluable in keeping this article about yourself accurate. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Mendaliv, thanks for being gracious. Others have been quite unkind in their assessments. The text about my work in the design of unusual illustrated books is correct and verifiable. However, I'll ask the people who originally posted the article to update it. Thanks again. JudithJudithdupre (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm very glad to have been of help. Please let me know if I can help any more! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your autobiography

Please see my comments at WP:EAR, then take a look at the page about you and its Talk:Judith Dupré page. I've spent a while cleaning the article up to Misplaced Pages standards for you, so you can now see what you are left with. Use the article page history to compare side-by-side the two versions so you can see exactly what I have done, and why. If there is anything you don't understand, or you wish to discuss the suitability of any sources you may wish to use, please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. I'm here to help. --Kudpung (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong user talk page... —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 11:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have. My humblest apologies! --Kudpung (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite alright! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Continued issue with Hornet24

You remember the issue with ships of the Russian Navy? Hornet still persists to edit pages while claiming to be getting the information from 'daily update' sources but fails to actually list them in his edits. His English isn’t that great, it’s quite obvious he wandered onto the English article and decided to edit the article as he saw fit. Hornet is also adding links on Russian Navy pages by changing the links to direct to the article that he is vandalising. I may be a bit forceful as you said, but what ells do you do when an editor persists to commit vandalism after you make it clear not to do so? It may be an issue of national pride causing the problem with Hornet. Recon.Army (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Recon, please try to assume good faith on the part of Hornet. I understand that this can be hard to do after a protracted dispute, but he's not vandalising anything as far as I can tell, and I haven't been shown any evidence to suggest a nationalistic bias. But I agree, there's a problem here... I'll try to drop him a note sometime today to engage him directly. I'll also try to take a look at the articles in question. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 12:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would try to assume in good faith, However he is clearly destructive. For example I had to revert his edit on the article List of active ships of the Russian Navy which he wrote "This page is whole copy of uncoplete list copyed from warfare.ru by User:Recon.Army".

Also please observe his recent edit that I had to revert in the intro to this page List of ships of the Russian Navy. Its clearly madness. He wrote;

"For this page are used materiels from warfare.ru, rusnavy.com, rian.ru, defenceindustrydaily.com, russianforces.org, thebulletin.org, janes.com, nti.org, etc. Data is uncomplete, becouse some users try to sabotage it with only one source (warfare.ru), and i hope, will be in short time fully updated. Thanks for comprehension. --Hornet24 (talk):

I had moved the entire list of active ships of the Russian Navy from the old name List of ships of the Russian Navy to the new List of active ships of the Russian Navy. The old articles title isn’t suitable in the context of a list of active ships of the Russian Navy. Thus List of active ships of the Russian Navy lists all the ships currently in-service in the Russian navy, while the old article List of ships of the Russian Navy, lists a group of direct links to every ship ever in service in the soviet and Russian navy’s.

But Hornet however is intent on reverting that and using the old article List of ships of the Russian Navy as his own un-referenced version of the Russian navy. In other words it’s a vandalised, un-referenced duplicate of the real article.

I never said it was national bias on Hornets part, I just said it may be. As he is trying to boost the number of ships of the Russian Navy and yet cannot provide an ref that his edits are facts.

Thank you for your help mate, and I hope we can sort this out. Recon.Army (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the article title and content, it may be appropriate to have a list of active ships separate from a general list of ships. I'm not sure though as I don't know much about naval articles on Misplaced Pages. The people at WikiProject Ships and WikiProject Military History might be better suited to resolve much of this.

Recon, please refrain from calling Hornet's edits vandalism; only deliberate attempts to damage the integrity of Misplaced Pages should be called vandalism, and I see no evidence that Hornet's edits qualify as vandalism. Persisting in calling Hornet's edits here vandalism qualifies as a personal attack. Hornet's edits are out of frustration and may be disruptive but are not vandalism.

Hornet, your edits are not in line with Misplaced Pages editing guidelines in multiple respects. We need consistency between articles, and while sourcing is clearly a problem in this article, your edits are not improving things.

May I suggest you both take a look at List of current ships of the United States Navy as an example of what a "current ships" article for the Russian Navy might look like? Note the inline references (i.e., every single entry has a reference right there). I think that if this sort of format develops, we should be able to rapidly develop a decent and properly sourced list article. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point on Hornets edits as not being Vandalism. You may of mis-read what I wrote, the List of active ships of the Russian Navy and a genural list of every ship ever in service in the Russian Navy are seperate.For example;

• List of active ships of the Russian Navy - For a list of currently active ships of the Russian navy
• List of ships of the Russian Navy - for a genural list of links to all types of ships ever in service in the Russian navy

It is the latter article List of ships of the Russian Navy that Hornet has been disrupting. Hornet feels he can edit in any infomation he thinks of and provide no refs for this infomation. Recon.Army (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well... as to the naming dispute, I think you're in the right as far as standard practices are concerned Recon. The list of active ships belongs at an article with a title that indicates that, and the general "list of ships" article should be a disambiguation page essentially.

As to the sourcing problem... I think once we remove the issue of where the information belongs, you'd still be left with a dispute over sourcing. Hornet, I can tell you that if you're going to add new information to articles, you need to cite your sources with reference tags. See WP:CITING for more information on how to cite sources. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Advisory - posted on all related talkpages:

Right guys, slow down and consider things. I've merged the 'active ships' page, which is a WP:CFORK. As you will see from the AN/I thread note I posted, both Russian and Western navies have different ideas about whether a ship is actually in service or not. Recon.Army, warfare.ru is just another source - we cannot accept it as superior to Jane's or whatever else is being used. The proper route is to add the status-disputed ships you want to add to List of ships of the Russian Navy and to list explicitly there which source says so. Then readers get a flavour of the difficulties involved in counting operational ships - I doubt Headquarters Northern Fleet's assessment would match what U.S. Naval Intelligence would list or what JAne's would list; they all have different standards!! I will copy this to the other person involved in the dispute, and advise you both to use Talk:List of ships of the Russian Navy to work out problem issues. I know the Russian Navy's status reasonably well - I've published articles on it - and am quite happy to help you two work out areas where your two sources of information may contradict each other. Golden rule: list both sets of information, with the source attached, and let the reader figure it out - they're intelligent enough to know we may not all have a full picture. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New Indicator for National Economy Infoboxes

Hi Mendaliv,

You responded to my proposal for a new statistic on the national economy infoboxes. I am still waiting to get responses to the proposal from the talk pages you recommended. In the meantime I am trying to learn how I would edit infoboxes should people like the proposal. Editing the html doesn't seem to be sufficient. Instead it seems there is some kind of underlying categorization process. The infobox page says it is transculded from the template doc page, but in a couple previews in the sandbox I was not able to preview what an infobox would look like with an additional statistics. Am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks in advance for your time and assistance!

Win.monroe (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Win.Monroe

Well, first off, you might be waiting some time (a couple days or more) for responses. Don't worry too much about that. I'm not sure how long you can expect to wait before you can feel comfortable in adding the statistic.

As to the infobox templates, here's what needs to happen:

• First, the infobox needs a new parameter added at Template:Infobox economy. Let's say you called it EDB rank (as a for-instance). This would involve modifying the infobox code a bit, using the preexisting code as an example of course.
• Second, you'd want to modify the documentation page to explain the purpose of the parameter.
• Third, and this you'd have to do on every article you wanted to add the statistic for, you go to the article and modify the infobox template by adding |EDB rank=3, or whatever the rank is.

I can probably help more with the first part of it if you need. Let me know! Changing the infobox isn't a big deal if you don't break it, but if you go through all the work of adding the statistic to the articles, and it's controversial and gets reverted, well there goes all that work. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the advice. I don't mind waiting and I am comfortable with editing the basic code on the economy pages (I went around and added the gini coefficient to some places it was missing) and on the documentation page, but I guess it is setting up the new parameter that I don't understand. I'd like to learn how to do it myself, but assuming I can't figure it out, your help would be much appreciated. Thanks again for your assistance, I am still a relative newbie at contributing to this site which I so much appreciate and believe in.

Win.monroe (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Win.monroe

DavidinDC

Greetings,

You can see from these edits here:

1. 15:51, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Paul Baltes: proofreading's gud)
2. 15:40, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: ok got it right this time.)
3. 15:38, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: keeping whole comment tabbed over correctly)
4. 14:54, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Paul Baltes: There is a less solipsistic explanation than vendetta.)
5. 12:20, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Denise Eisenberg Rich ‎ (moved "uncategorized" template to top and changed date. It was placed here in Jan., not Dec.)
6. 06:25, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Paul Baltes ‎ (last bit of copy editing)
7. 06:22, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Paul Baltes ‎ (additional copy-editing)
8. 06:19, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Paul Baltes ‎ (copy edit. Also removed words per WP:PEACOCK. Calling someone "reknowned" or "key" does not make it so. Notability requires references, not bald assertions.)
9. 06:14, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) Paul Baltes ‎ (Notable? I'm not sure. But I am sure questioning his notability is not a political attack. It's important to use edit summaries, but even more important that they be intelligible.)
10. 05:54, 6 January 2009 (diff | hist) m The Legend of Nigger Charley ‎ (space)
11. 18:29, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacey Owen (2nd nomination) ‎ (→Stacey Owen: tildes)
12. 18:29, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stacey Owen (2nd nomination) ‎ (added to list of porn star deletions)
13. 18:26, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) m User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: upper case)
14. 18:25, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: I split my answer, so I added the questioner's datestamp to the part I cut off with my first part of the answer)
15. 18:23, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: Technical issue reply)
16. 18:14, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: Let's be honest)
17. 17:59, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) m User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: spacing only)
18. 17:48, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Canadian Paul ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: Thank you)
19. 17:42, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) Misplaced Pages talk:Meetup/DC 5 ‎ (→Another date?: Post inaugurtion)
20. 12:46, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) m User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: spacing)
21. 12:46, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: keeping the discussion on one page)
22. 12:43, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:David in DC ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: reply)
23. 12:37, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: copy edit)
24. 12:36, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: copy edit)
25. 12:35, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) m User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: speeling)
26. 12:35, 5 January 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Ryoung122 ‎ (→Sebastian Bonnet: new section)

That DavidinDC's "attack" of the Paul Baltes page came just one day after the Sebastian Bonnet dispute (an actor in gay porn).

David himself remembered fairly quickly. Let's be honest, humans are humans, but I'm calling out inappropriate behavior. As it turns out, most people AGREE that Paul Baltes is worthy of an article, and the article was referenced as well (though missing inline citations). The Sebastian Bonnett article was re-created, so in away that's Robert 2, DavidinDC 0. David should NOT be targeting articles just to be spiteful of the editor.

Ryoung122 19:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Real diffs would have been more helpful. As would a clearer explanation of what I'm supposed to be looking for in these 26 edits. After reading every one, I see no "anti-gay comments". I see no evidence of "targeting" any particular articles- though even if he was, that would not be "anti-gay comments". I see no evidence of grossly inappropriate behavior.

On the other hand, I see you disagreeing with the deletion of an article about an adult film actor who happens to be gay. I see you accusing him (without evidence) of making "political attacks" and having a vendetta. I see a lot of unfair assumptions, and I see them coming out of you.

Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. It is not a battleground. If you're keeping score you're in the wrong place. I have seen no evidence that David has made anti-gay comments. This is a personal attack, even by your definition. Please redact your accusation. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see that you've retracted your claim of anti-gay comments, though evidently in favor of an accusation of anti-porn behavior. I'm sorry, but given what I saw in the edits you asked me to read above, I just see bad blood over an AfD. A disconnect exists between you and David in terms of your understanding of notability and the sourcing that needs to go into that. That's all, and it doesn't make either of you wrong, vandals or otherwise contrary to Misplaced Pages's interests.

Poisoning the well in discussions about notability in other articles is not helpful. Neither are quotations out of context, by an editor who appears to frequently make tongue-in-cheek comments, to, I assume, lighten the general mood around here. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 04:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Violation of Trademark Law

Dear Mendaliv,

The content you wrote regarding H-Wave is misleading, but more importantly violates Unites States Trademark Law. I'm sure you agree the changes I made were by no means any type of sales pitch for H-Wave®, I simply listed the FDA cleared indications with nothing added. I can accept eliminating everything about H-Wave on this[REDACTED] page; however, our attornies at Blakely Sokoloff Taylor Zafman have advised that not referencing our registered trademark and confusing our registered trademark with an unrelated product is a serious trademark issue. Though I have not wanted to get them further involved; Electronic Waveform Lab is more than willing to stronly defend its long standing United State Trademark.

I understand that you think you have referenced something credible; however, the statments you referenced are based on opinion, not evidence based medicine or facts.