Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:38, 25 May 2013

Archives

Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Thanks for dropping by! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page. Messages here will often be read by a number of people. If you would rather discuss an issue privately, you can email me. I typically reply here, and, if I do, I will typically tag you in the message. If I haven't gotten back to you in a week and/or haven't gotten to something I said would, feel free to leave a reminder.

Wikicup Table

How come the table hasn't updated for several days? My submissions have been assessed now since I updated two days ago but the table isn't updating for anyone.  — AARON • 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My score isn't updating this time.  — AARON • 16:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with images

Hi, do you know anyone who is an Admin. in Commons (other than User:Infrogmation who hasn't replied to me yet)? I have a problem- a pro-photographer friend of mine who donated dozens of photos in use tried to upload some of The Atlantics, and Martin Cilia, only to have someone in Commons decide they were copyright violation and that someone just grabbed them from the web somewhere. Can you help, or know anyone who can? Her name is Mandy Hall- one of her photo is the one of Jeff Beck in the infobox here! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Martha Logan FAC

Hi there. I've addressed some of the comments you've made. Do you mind taking a look? Steven Zhang 04:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nietzsche and Asian Thought

On 20 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nietzsche and Asian Thought, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2004 a special issue of the Journal of Nietzsche Studies was published which aimed to build upon the scholarship of 1991's Nietzsche and Asian Thought? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nietzsche and Asian Thought. 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.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Connie Talbot

Thanks for your recent edit. I was sad to see what John had done and happy to see it undone.1archie99 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sad again. Let me know if I can help.1archie99 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I received a warning also. Considering the source it is a badge of honor. The only voice he listens to is his own. I notice that he removed all of your additions to his talk page.1archie99 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup table and points

What's happened to LivingBot? It hasn't updated the table or individual participant points in almost 3 days now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

This is your only warning. Do not add or restore poorly sourced material onto a living person's article again. If you do, you will be blocked. If you have qualms about WP:BLPSOURCES, there are venues where you may discuss them. Reverting tabloid material onto a living person's biography is not the way forward here. I don't relish the idea of blocking you or the drama that would inevitably follow, but be in no doubt that I will follow through with my promise. Please find another way to deal with this matter rather than by restoring the material. The fact that the article concerns a child only makes the matter worse. Please think again about how you are approaching this. --John (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

John, you are involved by the fact you are taking a position on the page which happens to be conflict with J Milburns'. If you feel that anyone on that page does something blockable then I suggest you post a note on the appropriate noticeboard and I am sure it will be reviewed. If you take matters into your own hands and block someone yourself, then it is clear you are using admin tools while involved and the actions will need to be reviewed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Casliber, you are as wrong on this as you are on us not needing reliable sources on a BLP. I am not involved by virtue of enforcing our most important rule, on an article I have never substantively edited before. My block threat very much still stands. It would be terribly sad if I had to block an established editor, but don't kid yourself that I wouldn't. I would. I would always ask for community review after making any controversial block of course. I very much hope none of this will be necessary here, as it is much better if we can come to a compromise without anybody getting blocked. Incidentally, in the future if you want to contact me it would be better to do so at my talk than another user's. It's sheer luck that I happened to notice this. Cheers, --John (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You have no right to talk about compromise when you refuse to engage in discussion on the article talk page and threaten to block anyone who reverts your edits. No one is saying that reliable sources are not needed on BLPs, it's just that you have a ridiculous and unreasonable understanding of the phrase "reliable sources". J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you are giving John much more respect than is reasonable. His bullying should not be tolerated. Note that he said on your talk page he would block another editor and then ask for a community review. Can he actually do this? I am wondering at this point if he has extra super connections with the administrators. Your communications make sense to me while his make little sense to me.1archie99 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The key issue is that an administrator has to be neutral and uninvolved if they use admin tools in any debate, whether they be blocking or fully protecting a page or whatever. It doesn't matter how "right" they think they are, if they have taken an editorial position, such as here, then that is the position they have taken, and are hence involved. If there is a question that an admin might have used tools while involved, then it can be reviewed - the arbitration committee has accepted cases to look at admin conduct. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES is not an "editorial position" but a foundational principle of the project. If you don't understand that, you should stay well away from biographies of living people. --John (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

John, you took a position by removing content, it doesn't matter how right you think you are, you are still one party to a dispute (which J Milburn is trying to solve) - and even edit-warred about it. Misplaced Pages:Civility is a policy too, and if a person threw some expletive-laden post at you while in a dispute with you, it wouldn't be up to you to block them either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's really interesting that you've been on the project for this long without understanding WP:INVOLVED. Taking admin action does not make an admin involved! If it did, nothing would ever get done, vandals could not be blocked, articles could not be deleted etc. This is not a content dispute; it's an effort on my part to prevent tabloid sources being used to support information about the private life of a 12-year-old girl. I assume good faith regarding your and J Miburn's actions, but on this issue you are wrong. I am not seeing what WP:CIV has to do with it, unless you mean to chide J Milburn for calling me an idiot. If you or he get blocked it won't be for civility violations but for violating WP:BLP. --John (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Cheatin' Heart

Thanks for the comments. I reduced the lenght of the track to meet the 10% requirement.--GDuwenTell me! 14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup points inclusion clarification

Hi! A fellow Group A competitor included this article as part of his submissions. However, when I check back the history, all of his edits to the article consist of adding just two sentences. In total, 142 characters (with spaces) were added by him. Now I know he also added several refs, but the most important part of DYK is the prose portion; typically, anything less than a 5× expansion fails. Does writing 142 characters in a 4285 character-long article (3.3%) constitute "significant work" as per the rules of the WikiCup? I'm not trying to be picky; all I want is for the spirit of the rules to be followed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Found another problematic DYK article of his. From the history showing his contributions, it shows that he added the infobox, no references and 7 characters of prose (out of 2699). —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

• Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment

• WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome

• News and notes: Spanish Misplaced Pages leaps past one million articles

• In the media: Qworty incident continues

• Featured content: Up in the air

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

 — AARON • 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hi there. Yes, why not? What is your definition of significant? The things I contributed, IMO, were substantial enough, and not just minor edits. I'd be happy if you specifically point out the "articles on question". Thank you. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most definitely. I add sources and I add information and I claim credit for them. I actually rarely just copy edit articles as that's boring. You see, I believe that it is not whether you made three thousand or three edits to a page, but whether the information was vital or just rubbish. I do understand that Wikifying alone is not counted. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

7 characters of prose out of 2699 (0.25%) is certainly not significant, especially for a DYK (which counts prose only). I acknowledge that adding an infobox helps enhance an article, but not when it has to go through DYK process. I'm actually quite surprised that a DYK credit was awarded to this editor to begin with. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(This is in reference to Brooks Mountain.) Bloom, it's not just seven characters- Bonkers also added the height of the mountain, along with a source for that fact. While I agree that this is a long way from the other extreme of writing the whole article, I'm afraid that I don't really buy your arguments about how DYK is just about prose. DYK is about recognising strong new articles, and strong new articles would typically feature infoboxes, key data and solid sourcing. It is clear that Bonkers alone did not bring the article to DYK, but what is in dispute is whether his contributions were "significant". J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For collaborations, it's really about the team effort, I find, and not so much of a solo gig. I know, it would be unreasonable for me to claim credit if I just added a pathetic comma or a pathetic cat, but this is creditable. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

With all respect, J, you're the judge so you make the final call with some discretion. Thanks, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

See also. @bloom, If you're surprised about me, you'd be also surprised about Blofeld being credited (not a prob with me though). ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to have a muse on this. I have a lot going on right now, but I'll try to get back to you both within a few days. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Will do! Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

"DYK is about recognising strong new articles, and strong new articles would typically feature infoboxes, key data and solid sourcing." That's not what the eligibility criteria 2a says — "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc." I'm not nitpicking small DYKs here and there; I just don't want the WikiCup to award "cheap" and "free" points for minimal work. From what I ascertain, the WikiCup is here to recognize significant contributions to articles and is "won by skill of editing", not by how many DYKs one can churn out with the least amount of work. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the normal DYK guidelines; have you considered the WikiCup DYK ones? Whether it's significant or not is up to the judges' discretion and it's the spirit that matters. Like I said, my contributions aren't exactly minute and they provide vital info to the article. It's not like if it's a collaboration between three, each has to do 5,000 characters of work. Doesn't work that way. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Adds 7 characters to a DYK article. "My contributions aren't exactly minute." IMO, that quote is meme-worthy to say the least. :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(cont.) To put things in a larger perspective, I actually indirectly turned down an offer to take a GA to an FA. I hadn't worked much on the article compared to others and it was already close to being FA-quality. I actually considered it at first; it was an easy way to get a free 100 points (and my first FA) with most of the work already done. I wouldn't have to put the same time and effort into it as I would by taking a non-GA to FA. Taking it to FA would certainly not be against the rules. However, it would be clear gamesmanship on my part – not illegal but unprincipled. Quoting the scoring page, the WikiCup is suppose to be "just a bit of fun — at the end of the day, we're all here to improve Misplaced Pages." This whole incident has left me wondering – has the purpose of the Cup changed to become a quest solely to accumulate the most amount of points at any cost? If this is indeed the case, I will reluctantly and respectfully request my withdrawal from the WikiCup. I think I can speak for most fellow WikiCup participants when saying I wouldn't like to be participating in such a toxic environment. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We have fun if we don't stress over things like that... Leave it to the judges. I'm perfectly fine to removing entries. Don't fret, wait for their call. For now, happy editing. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy editing to you too. And may the best man win. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm best man at a chum's wedding so I guess I win. LOL. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha. You clearly beat me out hands down in that department – I've never been a best man (although I hope someday I will be). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the other WikiCup judge. J asked me to take a look at this situation. I believe we've used "significant" for all this time because, despite its vagueness, it's perfect for the situations we're facing here. We can't say "added at least half of the prose characters" because that (a) begs serious gaming (b) is crying out for a wikilawyer to dispute and (c) is too hard to check for. Plus, I think we can all agree that adding 1500 words to a 9000-word article (just 25% of the total) is just as or more significant as writing 75% of a 1000 word article. So, that's how "significant" got involved. We've traditionally interpreted the word as "the content added was a significant factor in the article's promotion or DYK" because the WikiCup is a content competition. All points for edits were eliminated years ago. As such, I don't think that the edits to the two cited articles meet that standard, as adding two sentences or an infobox did not constitute the primary or significant minority push to improve the article. My apologies though—you are doing some great editing overall. If anything here does not make sense, please let me know. Kind regards, Ed  17:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your ruling. What will this mean for the DYK points in question? Will they be kept or removed? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed them now, thanks for the reminder. :-) Ed  22:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: the deleted photos from Mandy Hall

I noticed that you do not have email activated here, right? I really would like to find out how the ORTS permissions in Commons works-- not just for pro-photographer Mandy Hall but for me, too! Since my earlier message is now buried in your archives, this is what she had to say about the five photos she attempted to upload:

This is the comment on the deleted photos - "Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work."

File:Martin-Cilia-band-02-WEB.jpg

File:The-Atlantics-WEB-3987.jpg

File:2013-Martin-Cilia-WEB.jpg

File:2011-Martin-Cilia-WEB.jpg

File:The Atlantics 2013.jpg

I am a professional photographer - I was paid both by Martin Cilia & The Atlantics to take those photos and they requested that they go up onto Misplaced Pages to replace the outdated ones. I own the copyright. I guess it's kind of flattering that my photos appear too professional to be my own work :-) I'm happy to supply original files with EXIF info if needed. Should I put in a request, or just leave it for you to handle?

She went on to provide all these ways of contacting her and I do know her well enough-- she was the first photographer I contacted back in 2007 who was very generous with allowing the Misplaced Pages to display many of her recent photos. She lives in Australia.

Mandy Hall Media

M: 0413 840 217

E: mandy@mandyhall.com A: PO Box 2238, Prahran VIC 3181 W: http://www.mandyhallmedia.com W: http://www.facebook.com/mandyh

Will you please help out so we can rectify this situation? I use Commons just to upload photos and don't really understand the rest of their work. Thank you so much for your kindness in crazy situations like this. I may copy this to my less busy talk page, if that helps? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WT:NFCC

Hey, sorry if I wasted some of your time there. It was a nice discussion with you and the other guys. I feel I should stop now. I've advertised the RfC in WP:CD. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Madeline Montalban

Thanks J! My first ever Featured Article; I'm pretty chuffed. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Roger le Poer

Think I've answered or dealt with all your concerns. Let me know if those don't meet your concerns or if you have more. Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

GA review for "Can't Hold Us Down"

Hi there! First of all, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review Christina Aguilera's "Can't Hold Us Down", I greatly appreciate your feedback. I've been working to correct several of the issues you highlighted in your review earlier today, you'd be surprised how much freetime I have! I still have a bit more to fix, but I'd love to have your opinion on the article's revised format thus far, so I can find ways to further improve the article. Thanks again, WikiRedactor (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)