Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:21, 28 April 2011

This talk page is not a battle ground

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Note of reply

x2

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on eHow. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sai baba non free usage

Hi Damian - what do you think under the long term lack of availability of a commons compatible picture in regard to a recently expired subject and the opinions for a non free rationale for a low resolution portion of a copyrighted picture? Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The guy is recently dead and, giving his position as a public figure, there are certainly many pictures of him available. We should expect (actively, and not just passively) some of these pictures to be released under a free license. --Damiens.rf 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, just as a question - how long, how many years of looking and requesting, how long do you support the lack of a commons compatible picture in relation to a dead person to be a decent reason to support/oppose a non free rationale? For example this subject we have been looking for a commons compatible picture for the last ten years and nothing has turned up, when do you suggest we move to a default position of more openness to accepting of a non free rationale? Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to establish a timeframe, as getting an image to be freely released depends more on motivation than time. Setting a date beyond which (lazily acquirable) non-free images would be acceptable would ruin the efforts to look for a free one.

The "ten years" figure you give is simply not truth. There were no Sai Baba article on the 2001 Misplaced Pages. --Damiens.rf 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, that was a guess - we have been looking for a commons comparable picture since the start of the[REDACTED] en (around a decade now ) and not found one, that is years and years of looking - non free use is not the devil and he is now dead - how many years of searching would be enough for you to accept a non free rationale - its also worth considering that users connected to the foundation have commented that a picture is of clear benefit to an article. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just repeating yourself. Tell me, in the benefit of a progressing discussion, how do we differentiate "10 years of searching" from "10 years of sitting down and waiting"? (If you consider it helpful, please be offensive on your reply). --Damiens.rf 18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me if I am repeating myself - I am only looking for your actual reasons. The picture is again replaced in the article, the one you have removed twice already, why is that, don't forget - non free is not the devil, not even nearly the devil. Sathya_Sai_Baba - imo what is required is a non free picture with a low quality portion and a decently erxplained non free rationale. Such as - we have been looking for a commons licensed picture for the last ten years and one has not been offered, as such this low quality image portion is educationally beneficial until one is available or not as the case may be. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:eHow. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. In particular your direct accusation here that I am sockpuppeting is a completely unfounded personal attack and I can prove that. The two IPs in question are 68.32.94.161 and 141.214.17.5. As I mentioned before, if you check the ARIN registry for North America you will see that those two IPs are a Comcast subscriber in New Jersy and the second is a direct assignment to the University of Michigan Medical Center. As I also previously mentioned I am in Canada and my ISP is National Capital FreeNet, which gets its DSL from Teksavvy in Chatham, Ontario. I'll save you the trouble of requesting a checkuser to back up your personal attack by signing my name here and then signing out and signing it a gain with my IP address so you can check that on ARIN. I then expect an apology from you for this baseless personal attack. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) My IP signature: - 69.165.136.77 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the patronizing message. Some time has passed since that edit. Was there something new that led you to post this template here? I mean, something besides the fact that every new editor joining that discussion has disagreed with your view? --Damiens.rf 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal attack was yesterday - I was waiting to see if you would reconsider what an error that was on your part and revert yourself. I am not concerned about the outcome of a reasonable debate to find a consensus on an issue and I can certainly live with the consensus that emerges from that debate, regardless of what it is. That doesn't excuse your edit warring and it especially doesn't excuse your unconscionable personal attack on me, which I have conclusively proven was unfounded and an extreme case of bad faith on your part. I am still waiting for your apology. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Starting an investigation of sockpupetry is not a personal attack. Commenting more on editors than on content is. --Damiens.rf 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't start a sockpuppet investigation - you carried out a personal attack and on a clearly unfounded basis. I am still waiting for your apology. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't. I regret none of the actions you mention. --Damiens.rf 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though you have been proven to have been 100% wrong in the subject of your personal attack. I am awed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To the benefit of you passage on Misplaced Pages, you should consider really reading Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks (or at least the in a nutshell version). --Damiens.rf 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Staring a sockpuppet investigation against me is one one thing, we will deal with that over there, but you didn't even complete the process at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance which requires you to inform me that you had done that, Step VI says "Notify all the users you are accusing..." Instead an admin had to complete the job for you. So next time you file a sockpuppet report please do complete the process right to the end and inform the person of your accusations. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. To the best of my recollection, this was my first sockpuppetry report. --Damiens.rf 16:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I had to look up how they work myself, after six years here I have never filed one either. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 April 15#File:MorrisThompson.jpg

This discussion came across my watchlist a little too late to participate. Hence, I'll offer my comments now. When I originally came across the article, I had the slight impression that it was geared too much towards the plane crash. There was a text comment left to the effect of "Don't add a birth date unless sourced," like it was going to be difficult or something. I suppose if you're 100% reliant upon Google to the point where it blinds you to the existence of other sources, there may be a problem. It should be obvious that with a Google search, the results are going to be skewed more towards corporate media sensationalism if the opportunity presents itself.

In a sense, it's a good thing to see the photo go away, and also to see effort put into finding a replacement. Now, addressing the rationale:

• Point 3: Thompson had two other daughters, who far as I know, still survive. Being an Alaska Native, he has an abundance of relatives in numerous communities throughout interior Alaska.

• Points 4 and 5: Is it really important to have a photo of Thompson as an older man? Like I alluded to earlier, this perhaps is giving undue weight to the plane crash versus any other aspect of his life. Where I come from, Morris Thompson is known for a whole lot more than having died in a plane crash, and Athabascan people (as well as others from around here) may become very offended if they realize that's what the case is or may be. It may possibly stand in the way of someone granting permission for a photo to be used on here.

Several months back, I did send an e-mail to the BIA asking if an official photo was available. I never received a response. From my so-far-limited experience in making inquiries, people in positions of receiving such requests typically automatically turn their noses up at the first mention of "Misplaced Pages." Anyway, happy hunting.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Matt Weinstock

Yes, I think it is better without the last quotation, although my feathers got ruffled by the use of the word parrot. Awkk! (On the Internet nobody knows what species you are.) Yours in birddom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Hopper Rider.jpg relisted

This file File:Hopper Rider.jpg that you commented on at FfD has been re-listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 April 28#File:Hopper Rider.jpg Please see the discussion to see why this is. Skier Dude (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, and congrats for the honesty! --Damiens.rf 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Playmate AfD Nominations

I have been going through a large number of your nominations. A substantial number of them are for people who appear to be notable if you do a simple google search. However trying to check hundreds of AfD nominations is going to result in articles of notable people being deleted. Can you suggest a way to get an adaquate review of them all within the regular AfD listing period? Monty₈₄₅ 03:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just don't try to do it all yourself. We have enough volunteers. If we, as a community, were able to create articles for almost every person that has stripped for Playboy, and we, as a community, could review a small part of these articles and nominate the oddest ones for deletion, then we, as a community will be able to discuss the deletions and save any false-positive that may have been listed by mistake. --Damiens.rf 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have similar concerns as Monty845, and have raised the matter at ANI here . While I'm in general agreement with the argument you make, I believe that the sheer bulk of similar nominations overwhelms the process. I've been editing toward the same end, over the last month or so, focusing on redirecting stub article for marginally notable models rather than outright deletion, with little controversy. I fear that the large number of nominations will turn into an all-or-none which won't turn out favorably; and that the relatively small number of "false positives" (several clear cases of which I've already noted) will be taken as evidence that a general WP:BEFORE failure has occurred. I'm seriously concerned that this will backfire badly, and prevent us from solving the problem that we're both trying to handle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please stop now -- we're only 4 hours into Thursday, and there are already more nominations than all of yesterday.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Full stop. --Damiens.rf 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Monty and the rest. While the wiki community is massive, the participation at AFD is only a very small part of the whole. With this enormous number of AFDs being postef at once, there is no way that every article will be reviewed thoroughly. Beach drifter (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)