Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:23, 18 April 2013

If it is more appropriate to comment on another talk page please do so and let me know. If possible can you please supply links to the topic in question. That will make it easier for me to follow up your comments. And please use a neutral tone when posting on this page otherwise the comments will be ignored.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

TV articles of unclear notability

Tempering

Thanks for doing the hard work of removing links to the disambiguation page. I have one request — on articles about North American archaeological sites, could you either leave the link or let me know when you've removed it? Some of these pages, including two that you've delinked (Turpin Site and State Line Archeological District), should be changed from ] to ], but the situation is ambiguous enough that you'd have to waste a lot of time researching whether the page's authors meant Mississippian-style tempering or something else. The edit to Turpin prompted a discussion between the author of the Mississippian article and me on fixing these links; he's a professional and will be able to find better targets for these links much more easily than you or I could. Finally, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Can do. Don't really agree with a ] piped link though. Principle of least surprise. Is there another option? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Shell tempered pottery is more useful now that I have pointed it at the relevant section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Saw that you've added this link — thanks a lot, since this is the best solution. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

It's a Fox! (What did I break) 13:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Wildlife of Vietnam

On 16 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wildlife of Vietnam, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the wildlife of Vietnam includes the saola (pictured), an antelope-like animal unknown to Western science until found in 1992 in the Bach Ma National Park? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Vietnam. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I think this is my first DYN credit! Anyway, I did not create it or substantially expand it. Can I keep the DYN credit anyway? Pleease... ( ) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Shore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Alan, Got your message about my signature - but I don't know how to fix it. Offender9000 07:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There are clear instructions at Special:Preferences and details are at WP:CUSTOMSIG. It has been changed from its default setting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You were recently blocked for one month for violating your edit restriction. When I looked at your edit history today, I was sad to see you have continued to violate the edit restriction since that block expired. As you know, you simply are not permitted to make category-related edits outside the main namespace. Accordingly, I have blocked your account for the next duration in the standard sequence, which is 3 months. To admins reviewing this block: please read the previous block message, which is archived at User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive_21#Topic_ban, March 1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I find a few things with this extremely troubling:

1. CBM rarely uses his tools except it seems in cases like this where it could be argued he is involved.
2. No other admin seems to find these edits to be a problem yet its always CBM that seems to be the one to "notice" them
3. Another glaring example of an extremely poor decision by Arbcom that is hindering improvement to the pedia. There are absolutely zero edits in the last week as far as I can tell that were not an improvement.
4. That CBM seems to be stalking Alan's edits now that Rich F has been banned from the project (Another example of an extremely bad Arbcom decision BTW)
5. It seems a little disengenuous to say he was "sad" when he admit to stalking his edits. If you notice one that's one thing, if you are intentionally looking for something to block the user for, there is no sadness implied.

It is examples like this where certain admins are allowed to act this way with impunity while other editors aren't even allowed to edit protected articles or see deleted content that really solidify the problems with this site and its culture. When our policies and unequal implimentation of policy only when it suits us hinder needed improvements, its time for some change. Its unfortunate that our culture also blocks the ability to make change. Some days I see things that make me wish I had the tools to help out more. Then I see things like this that are allowed to happen and it shows me that its better that I am not. I sincerely hope that either CBM changes his mind, Arbcom unscrews their decision or some other admin with the morale courage to undo this steps up. All of these are doubtful IMO. Kumioko (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No other admins are as fast as CBM to notice Alan's violations. And all of the number points above are misleading, if not actually disingenious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your probably right on the first point but then most of them aren't actively watching his every edit looking for something either. Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This dysfunctional admin system has become the biggest block standing in the way of developing Misplaced Pages. It's very good at making uncompromising and unskillful blocks like this one. The only real remedy is to dismantle the system and start again, but a partial remedy would be some sort of mission statement or constitution settings out some underlying principles for admins. The most fundamental principle, however strange and revolutionary it may seem, is that admin actions should, always, be designed to facilitate the building of the encyclopaedia. This means there has to be at least a modicum of respect for the people who actually build the encyclopaedia. Certain other principles follow automatically, such as applying common sense and basic decency rather than thoughtless and rigid adherence to arbitrary rules imposed by admins themselves. Alan's editing style needed some shaping, and a skillful admin system would have done that. Instead, we lose future work from a prolific and overall valuable editor, and other content builders are yet again reminded that on Misplaced Pages they are devalued and powerless. How could the system be more stupid? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

At the very least anyone who has been an admin for more than 36 months should have to rerun. Maybe even 24 months. Kumioko (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about Rich F. CBM was an enabler of Sandstein when Sandstein seemed to be falling over himself in eagerness to block Rich F. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've beaten up on Alan over categorization as much as nearly anyone. This block might even be warranted. Yet it would be hard to find an action more likely to raise counter-productive thoughts of admin bias than having Carl implement such a block. It looks far too much like a biased admin, rather than a real misdemeanour warranting a 3 month block. If this action was necessary, other admins would have picked up on it. If this action was warranted, Carl could have asked another admin to carry it out. Either of these would have been far better than this. Look at Alan's block log (which is admittedly unimpressive) – most of these are from one admin. Either one admin is super-efficient compared to others, or one has something of an axe to grind. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Very good points Andy. I hadn't even looked at the block log until you mentioned it. That is indeed troubling. Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Very bad point. Alan is an efficient editor; if he starts making bad edits, he can do so quickly enough that it's impossible to get back. Possibly CBM should have sent the matter to ANI after the block, but there was a real danger of things happening too quickly to easily reverse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...

I never know whether to not reply or to make a stand, but I think I am buggered either way. I should have expected this new block because I got a bit carried away tidying of some of the WP admin categories.

Carl, have I pissed you off at some point in the past, because it sure looks like you got it in for me. You do very few edits yet you take the time to check up on what I have been doing. As has been said above maybe you should talk it over with another admin. Or do you like the power that an admin has of kicking someone with repeated blocks? I am having trouble assuming good faith here. Another thing, why not IAR - as I have been doing - if it means there is an improvement to WP? Do you think there has been an improvement to WP with my edits? I like to think so. And it seems that the community are not concerned about my edits (under the topic ban) since they don't get reverted.

Arthur, you also had it in for me but you seem to be mellowing. I think. I am not sure if I get the gist of what you said above.

Epipelagic, something certainly needs to be done about how WP is administered. There are huge problems in virtually all areas of WP administration. Sometimes I am surprised we manage to get anything done around here! BTW, I am curious to know why you think my editing needs some shaping. None of us are perfect and that is the beauty of collaborative editing - all the wrinkled get ironed out. We can end up with the nicely ironed and pressed featured articles. Meanwhile, heaps of more important stuff goes undone. But that's another story.

I wonder if we should get get an uninvolved admin to look at the situation? One that uses rationality to make decisions rather than irrational aspects of human behaviour.

Hey! Maybe a three month break will cure my wikipediaholism! And Carl, you have managed to do what my partner cannot do - namely getting me away from the computer!

Anyway, we should all move on. You lot have got an encyclopedia to build. I will get back to the real world and get some more chores and projects done. See you all in three months. Or not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

CSD Declined

Hi. I have declined your request for speedy deletion of Omeida Language College as educational institutions are not legible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. If you still believe that it should be deleted, then I suggest you nominate it for WP:AFD after your block has expired. Stephen! 11:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)