Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:18, 24 November 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.
I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.
I do not fancy non-consensual templated "WikiLove".

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Hans Adler! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Not so fast on who and whom...

In case you're interested, I've just disagreed with you about who and whom.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Opps

My bad I must have looked at the wrong line in the history. I apologize for that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Hans Adler 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

One more try

You refused last year, but I'm going to try again this year. You should go for it. Volunteer Marek  22:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. While it would no doubt be instructive to run and see how people react, did you see the announcement when the Arbcom recently removed Iridescent for extreme inactivity? It's quite likely that would happen in my case as well. It's a full-time job, and while I am wasting too much time on Misplaced Pages, it's not that much, I can do it at my own pace, and I only do what interests me at the moment. In fact, for similar reasons I don't even want to become an admin, and last year several functionaries have made it quite clear on the occasion of Giano's candidacy that they consider that an essential condition. But thanks for your trust anyway. Hans Adler 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think you've made the right decision, the role does seem to be too much of a time sink. But it would have been nice to see someone attempting to break the administrators' stranglehold on ArbCom nevertheless. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD comment

Hey Hans. I replied to your comment on Wilhelm Busch. I certainly didn't mean any offense, so I'm sorry if you picked up any combative tone in my reply. As I explained there, my comments regarding the article were not directed at you. I also had not read your user page, so I was not aware you were a native speaker of German. I'm not sure how that ties into your comment, but again, no offense intended. I do appreciate the information you've been able to provide given your skillset, which is why I was willing to change my vote. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, would you pls. help me with this sentence taken from BEKANNTE MITGLIEDER DER CVJM/YMCA BEWEGUNG INTERNATIONAL? "1929/30 bis 1962 Jugendpfarrer in dem von seinem Vorgänger, Pfarrer Wilhelm Weigle, 1912 eingerichteten Weigle-Haus (CVJM) in Essen." Everything is quite clear to me except "1912 eingerichteten Weigle-Haus", does it mean his predecessor furnished some House for usage by YMCA in 1912 that then was named after him or what's the possible meaning of Weigle-Haus? Pls.advise. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If taken absolutely literally, it would mean that in 1912, his predecessor (in what office?) installed, instituted, established or indeed furnished the house, which was from the start called the "Weigle-Haus". The only reasonable reading that I can see is this: The person referred to as his predecessor was his predecessor in the office of youth pastor in Essen. (The only way this could be wrong is if the sentence was lifted from a longer text without the necessary adaptation to its new context.) The predecessor had established a house for youth work (which may have been built for the purpose or may have been bought; and it's also not clear whether his predecessor was the first youth pastor in Essen or not and whether the youth work had previously been done elsewhere or not at all) which later became known as the "Weigle-Haus", for obvious reasons.

Your link doesn't work for me, but a Google search on the site did. Here is a literal translation of the sentence: "1929/30 to 1962 youth pastor in CVJM's Weigle Haus in Essen, which had been established by his predecessor, pastor Wilhelm Weigle."

I was previously under the impression that he was president of the CVJM, but it seems I read the German Misplaced Pages article too hastily, which was actually referring to Gustav Heinemann. Hans Adler 08:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to consensus reached, somebody renamed Wilhelm Busch priest to clergymen instead of pastor, my you pls. comment on article discussion page? Thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You ultimately caused that with your copy-and-paste move. Once there has been something under a name, non-admins cannot move any article to that name any more. There is no need to discuss this further. Just wait until the AfD is officially closed, then we can ask an admin to move the article again. Hans Adler 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So...

Perhaps you misconstrued what I wrote on AN/I? I hope you take it to heart when I say (as I just did there) that I WILL NOT support a block (or other sanctions) of Ludwigs2 at this time. I've never been opposed to him having a different opinion - perhaps others were, but that was never my point of contention. It's tough to get an understanding on someone's motives and meanings online via text, so all I can say is I sincerely hope you gain a better understanding of mine through this ongoing saga - and I hope the fact that I will vehemently oppose sanctions (if this thing fully re-opens) is something that will help you gain that understanding. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 03:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I decided to make it "official" (my !revote) - perhaps that and Nil Einne's comments will help end things. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 03:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am sure that I did not misconstrue anything. His conduct was perfectly normal given the way in which your camp regularly abuses a policy to prevent necessary discussions that are otherwise likely to end in a strong consensus that you don't like. It was also better than yours. His conduct was also better than yours. Therefore it was completely inappropriate for you to defend the reopening of the thread with the words you used. Hans Adler 08:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I guess you did misconstrue something. I wasn't defending reopening the thread. I've even suggested it be closed. I was pointing out that Mathsci's second reason wasn't addressed - nothing more or less. My apologies you misconstrued that, as that is likely my fault due to not making that clear until later. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 15:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter how many hairs you split, and how finely, to rationalise your behaviour. Hans Adler 15:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did at John Pike. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Please stop referring to this living person is an opinionated manner Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Frivolous warnings to win a POV dispute are not acceptable. Hans Adler 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to this living person is an opinionated manner - You have done it at the BLP noticeboard as well - I suggest you retract your comments and cease the behavior. Other edits have objected also. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans: The BLP warnings are a little excessive, I think. But at the same time the DISAMBIG people usually remove entries that don't actually link anywhere, even if the entries are well known, under the byzantine style guide for disambiguation pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look into that. I believe there was a redirect that was also removed for bogus BLP reasons. The spike in views of the John Pike disambiguation is hardly an accident, so removing this entry just doesn't make sense. Hans Adler 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what you mean is the following from WP:DAB#Related subjects, abbreviations and acronyms: "Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. (For example, the Canton disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for Flag terminology.)" Given that John Pike is mentioned in the article and even appears with a photo, the link is clearly legitimate. Hans Adler 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of "An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation.", but I see that perhaps the section on "Items appearing in other articles" would apply (MOS:DABMENTION) if he is actually mentioned by name in the OWS article.

FWIW I am not planning to get involved in any of the discussions but my thoughts are that the way BLP policies are normally interpreted, especially WP:BLP1E, does prevent making an article on Pike, and the way that a sizable minority interprets it would prohibit even mentioning his name in the OWS article. Our policies are not very good for helping publicly document crimes and abuses of power of this sort. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E prevents an article on the person, I agree. I don't think it prevents the naming of criminals before they are prosecuted, or in fact even if they are acquitted. The article on the demonstration doesn't just name him, it also has a photo of John Pike pepperspraying the students. It is of course iconic for the demonstrations, but Off2riorob is moving it down from the lead, claiming it has nothing to do with the demonstrations/movement themselves. I don't think that's at all tenable, and he seems to realise this, as he also addedn an obviously nonsensical argument about image size. Hans Adler 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy

I'm stunned. That article has been a cess pool for too long and with an attempt to provide a cooling off period and remove all images so no one "wins" anything., so it become even, its gaming? I did what I did in good faith to try and clean up a mess.Your reasoning escapes me.(olive (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ... I misunderstood where your comment was directed.(olive (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, I was puzzled even after searching around in the page history. Of course the "gaming" referred to Hipocrite's pledge to "shun anyone" who dares to do something about the status quo. Hans Adler 22:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

it's such an odd thought too; there are days I would pay money to be shunned by people like hypocrite. It would make my like so much nicer… --Ludwigs2 23:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusing living people of torture

You are continuing on with your attacking accusatory comments , please take this as a last warning - if you continue I will be forced to report you to the noticeboard - I suggest, as others have requested that you cease the torture allegations and strike the multiple ones you have made already. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice another user has removed them from the BLPn - I sincerely hope you won't replace them and that you remove them from the article talkpage before someone else has to. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. I am currently watching the videos posted by an IP to the talk page with claims that they somehow justify the behaviour. So far it appears that that was a hoax. I will respond to you when I am finished with them. Hans Adler 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just stop it with your posting torture allegations against this person. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Going to bed now. Just stop defending the honour of an obvious criminal. Hans Adler 01:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You will stop, or you will be blocked. That is all. Rklawton (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, although our articles cannot say "torture" until that is the consensus of many reliable sources, there is no reason for editors commenting on talk pages from limiting themselves in that way. Although reasonable people can disagree, it is not in any way unreasonable for some to describe Pike's actions as torture. Whether that would help convince anyone else about anything is more questionable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, we do not require editors to say "allegedly" when they say on a talk page that Jerry Sandusky committed sexual assault, but we are more circumspect in the actual text of our article. There is actual footage of Pike's actions, unlike Sandusky's. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

CBM - read this: Rklawton (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." The material wasn't unsourced or poorly sourced. It was all over television everywhere and can be watched at leisure on YouTube from many angles, even if you just use the videos uploaded by official news sources and ignore the private uploads. It was clearly related to a content choice. And, frankly, the mere fact that a number of editors here appear to consider the question contentious was absolutely shocking to me. Although of course as a German, familiar with the concept of banality of evil, it should not have been. Hans Adler 08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen the current skirmish (just the drama at ANI), but I can imagine the progression that has led to this situation. The first thing I noticed was the attempt by others to argue that something associated with ghosts was a pseudoscience. Then there were attempts by others to use NOTCENSORED and other dubious logic to justify possibly undue images. Now we have what looks like a pretty clear cut case of an out-of-control cop, and attempts to stifle associated discussion—discussion that would be standard in many other locations. Nevertheless, no page at Misplaced Pages should be used to call a particular individual a criminal unless certain legal processes have been completed (and even then, editors do not have a right to use Misplaced Pages to vent about anything). Our opinions on what someone did are not relevant, and to express them is violating NOTFORUM—and that's before any consideration of BLP, and the beauty of BLP is that it protects morons as well as saints because Misplaced Pages should not be used for any noble cause (other than writing an encyclopedia). Hans and Carl each have excellent reputations that are well deserved—however this case shows that no one is correct all the time. No doubt the merits of the situation will be debated for some time to come, but the simple statements made by Rklawton above are an accurate representation of how this sort of incident is handled. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans's initial comments were possibly of some use in article development (deciding how to interpret sources etc.) but after a few repetitions they became not-very-helpful and perhaps pointy editorialization/FORUM-like discussion. O2RR's posts here though were ridiculously hostile and seemed to indicate battleground editing on his part. Not having kept a scorecard during the ghost thing, I wasn't aware of a previous dispute between O2RR and Hans; if there was one, I guess it explains things somewhat. I'm glad Hans is getting some sleep, since waking up refreshed is a good way to regain perspective in this type of conflict. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. I certainly mentioned certain verifiable facts more often than I would have done without Off2riorob's behaviour. You can safely put that down to reactance. Regarding my previous interactions with Off2riorob, they have usually been constructive and we have often agreed, as in this case. I do not have any recollection of an involvement of Off2riorob in the ghosts thing, generally do not hold grudges and was not aware that Off2riorob does so. (Which is why I am not actually taking this seriously.) I think that's a red herring. Hans Adler 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)