Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 20 May 2008

Archives

Current Late 2004 and onwards March 2006 and onwards November 2006 and onwards July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June–July 2009 August–December 2009 January–June 2010 July 2010 and onwards

Funny!

Thanks for stepping in that DarkFalls issue. It's that kind of contention that made me drop out of this project for the long term on more than one occasion, but I have to tell you, you made me feel better. Reciprocating with a cookie! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Images uploaded by Mr. CF

Could you please research this a little? I notice that you deleted Image:Mormeck.jpg, and in researching the image Image:B-Pac.jpg I discovered that it appears on with the photo credit "CHRIS FARINA, Top Rank Promotions". Can you contact User:Mr. CF to verify that they are in fact the same Chris Farina who took the photo, and if they are it seems likely that the Mormeck photo was also legitimate, but just not properly licensed. One question to ask, is even if he took the photo, does he own rights to it or not? 199.125.109.57 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! You're right about the questionable source and the issue of it possibly being a work for hire, so I've deleted the image. I've sent Top Rank an email asking them to get in touch with OTRS if they'd like to donate any photos to us. Thanks for the tip, anon! east.718 at 19:06, May 10, 2008

Flowing Hair Dollar

Why did you delete the images from Flowing Hair Dollar? Is there any way to get them back? I am not going to contribute to Misplaced Pages if you are going to randomly delete stuff. --Freshmutt (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there are special rules about photographing coins and paper money. The rules can be confusing, but although I am not East718, I want to encourage you to continue to contribute, especially because there are so few images in Misplaced Pages (partly because of the strict copyright requirements). From the stated reason for deletion "(CSD I6: No justification given for fair use for more than seven days)" it looks like there was not a proper copyright notice on the image. In the case of a 1795 coin there would possibly just need to be a notice that it was so old that any copyright had expired. I would suggest looking for some other articles with coins and see what license notice they used, such as Indian Head nickel, or Seated Liberty dollar. I think all you had to do is under the license section choose {{money-US}}. Please also check to see if it is ok to upload to commons instead, as all pd images are being moved to the commons. see commons:dollar 199.125.109.104 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, the anon is right - the real issue here was that the image was mistagged: they were actually free. I've restored the images, put them back in the article, and filled out their information pages correctly. east.718 at 19:06, May 10, 2008

Super. If you know all about tags, and I obviously don't, why didn't you just fix it in the first place? I had the same problem with an album cover I uploaded to Skynyrd's Innyrds. Is there any way to restore that with proper tags?--Freshmutt (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored that image and fixed it up too - it was deleted by another admin for a really silly reason. The reason why I delete images rather than fix them is that there is a very serious and perennial backlog with regards to copyright infringement; it's at around 10,000 images right now and over 100,000 a couple months ago. Most of these images are very problematic, and the task has been laid out. It is far faster and safer from a legal perspective to slash-and-burn through these backlogs and accept the 1% of good images that get deleted as collateral damage, rather than spend far more time tirelessly applying potentially baseless fair use rationales. east.718 at 21:40, May 17, 2008

Rogue Images

You wrote:

There is no evidence that Rogue is licensed under the GFDL.

From the uploads contribution log....

1. 00:35, 26 April 2008 (hist) (diff) N Image:Rogue Unix Screenshot Thumb.JPG‎ ({{Information |Description=Rogue (computer game) Unix Screen Shot |Source=self-made |Date=2008-04-25 |Copyright (c) 2008 |Copyleft (cl) 2008 GFDL |Author=Arthur_Transformation |other_versions=None. |Note:Parts of the software used to create this image are) (top)

hmm.. What does it say there? Looks like it has both a copyright, a copyleft, and a creation source as well as GFDL. Hmm.. Some other policy yould like to quote? Artoftransformation (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot make up a license of your choice for screenshots of a game, only the person or company that holds the intellectual property rights to the game has the authority to do that. And since myself and ^demon seem to be on your "assholes" list, I don't want to discuss the issue further. east.718 at 04:13, May 11, 2008

Sweet! You have just invalidated a large number of images, both of game screen shots, but of a *lot* of other works, in terms of IP. Are all the Disney/Star Trek images here also invalid? Artoftransformation (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, a tiny amount of reasearch ( like actually READING wikipedia ) would have helped you a lot. To wit: ] "

This is a screenshot of a non-free copyrighted video or computer game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company or person that developed the game. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

   * for identification and critical commentary on
         o the computer or video game in question or
         o the copyrighted character(s) or item(s) depicted on the screenshot in question
   * on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law, as such display does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context, and presents ideas that cannot be exhibited otherwise. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content."

Did I put you on any other lists? Artoftransformation (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Image:Rogue_Unix_Screenshot_CAR.PNG. Check out the last part above the license. ^demon 12:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I've been immortalized in imagespace! I don't really care, but I'll probably support you no matter how you play it. east.718 at 01:07, May 20, 2008

Bobby Pacquiao

Was the image on the Bobby Pacquiao article really copyvio? Didn't the uploader provided sufficient information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.128.115 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The uploader falsely claimed that the image was self-authored; a little investigation by a different user found that the image was actually taken by Chris Farina for Top Rank Promotions. east.718 at 17:35, May 11, 2008

I see the point. However, that user managed to add information such as telling where and when the picture was taken. Also, part of the uploader's username might be an acronym of the copyright holder. 71.130.128.115 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't just take the word of some anonymous user as to their identity (ostensibly, this is to protect the copyrights of the people whom the uploaders claim to be). There's also the issue of the image possibly being a work for hire; either way, I've shot off some correspondence to Top Rank asking them about the copyright status of the image and whether they'd like to donate some images to Wikimedia by relicensing them as suitably free. east.718 at 07:04, May 12, 2008

unprotection...

Hi - Your note on the PPA talk page indicates you were going to unprotect the article, but it's still locked. Did you change your mind or are you still planning to proceed with that? Thanks --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I reverts

I saw your comment, Beta rolled over both our edits with his latest revert though.. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, you've both stopped. east.718 at 07:04, May 12, 2008

Lady Pearl Photo and Article

I'm wondering why Image:606 LadyPearl2.jpg and its accompanying article, "Lady Pearl," got deleted.

I don't know anything about copyright law, all I know is that I got verbal permission from the person who took the picture (who was also in the picture) and tried to note that: "This photo was taken from the following MySpace site with permission from the subject. It was taken at home with a digital camera and The Lady Pearl gives permission for this photo to be used. http://www.myspace.com/theladypearl" Is that information not relevant? Does copyright law really apply to personal photographs? Is someone who takes a family photo considered an "artist"?

And how about the article? I've tried searching the February deletion log for my login, "lady pearl" and "ladypearl" and I'm not coming up with anything.

I'd also like to know more about why you (East718) felt justified in deleting the photo, and, if it was you, the article, and how it feels to be, in many cases, something of an arbiter of pop culture. How do you decide what's too provincial, too unimportant? How is this forum different from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica if entries have to prove national or global importance to be included?

Thanks Csflannery (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, East718.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Was there supposed to be a !vote to go along with this? If not, you might consider putting it on the talk page to avoid confusion (or maybe putting it under Neutral). Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Misplaced Pages Bot Builder Award
		For your image query bot that introduced me to BOTing MBisanz 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

uh

" Re: Dear Bonehead Your entire contribution history over the past four years amounts to nothing but an amalgam of self-promotional spam, vandalism, trolling, and harassment. Can you think of any reason why we should keep you around here? east.718 at 10:06, February 24, 2008"

No personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip to Sunderland (talk · contribs)

Hi. Can I ask if there was any particular reason motivating your blocking of this user at this point? I'm not disagreeing with it in any way -- it would just be useful to understand why the action was taken at this point.

Thanks!

Sam Korn 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a sleeper sock of somebody who creates hundreds of them to waste time; if you're asking about the timing, I think Dmcdevit found it when he was running an IP check or something for me. east.718 at 19:03, May 13, 2008

I was just wondering if there was any particular reason given the block history. Thanks -- that's exactly what I thought was going on. Sam Korn 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my Userpage.

Has it ever occured that some userpages took ALOT of time to put together?!? If something on the page violates the policy, delete the damn part that violates the policy, not the entire freakin page. That took me over 5 hours to make. Sure, i'll remove all the personably identifable info. But deleting the entire page without first contacting me? Misplaced Pages isn't my parent and i don't need them for that. the main reason why most of that stuff was on there was a reference poiont, for me. I can't even remember my own ICQ number most of the time. Please consider others before following policy. Could the page please be recreated and i will remove any personal identifiable info. | 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just because I'm young doesn't mean i'm uneducated. There are some sick people out there. But thankfully, wikipedia is mostly a safe environment. I'll take your advice and remove some of the more personably identifiable info. I understand why people would fuss over it, but it's not like i'm a small child who doesn't know any better. I'm 1 1/2 years away from legally being an adult. I've registered my Email not and it can be sent. | 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for being overprotective... - - | 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg

Hi,

You deleted Image:SkyTran Seattle2.jpg some time ago because it was unused for 7 days. The image was unused because UniModal was deleted. UniModal's deletion was overturned, and I was wondering if you would undelete the picture. Let me know.

Thanks Fresheneesz (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Fresheneesz (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For being way overprotective

WBOSITG's RfA

Hello East718, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Recall?

Hello sorry for my impolitness. But are you open to recall?  :) Save The Humans:) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into our case

I thought that I was doing the right by posting Vandalism Warnings on Panel 2008's talkpage. I only did so because Panel 2008 was editing against consensus and he knew that.

I thought that repetitive edits against consensus was vandalism, am I wrong?

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: AN3

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'm at a loose end with this particular editor. The underlying problem is that he just doesn't seem to "get" the concept of original research (or refuses to read the policy page on it) and fails to understand when he is beginning to engage in it, particularly when he is drawing his maps, which he does so like to do. He also, when challenged for sources, has a tendency to do some Googling and then cite self-published websites (ie personal websites uploaded to the web by "some guy") or another map uploaded to Misplaced Pages. How does one deal with someone who just plain refuses to change their behaviour here? And - worse - when it's at articles whose talk pages have very low foot-traffic and can often be weeks before someone else chimes in - if at all? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that User:Red4tribe is evading his two week ban by reverting at Italian Empire whilst logged out. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting deletion

• 16:52, May 13, 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008" ‎ (csd g6)

You didn't delete the associated talk page. I CSDed it but the tag was removed. Shouldn't that be deleted as well? Enigma 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. IMO, it was a speedy candidate. Enigma 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a decision in 3RR

Hi, regarding your decision on this case - I would like to say, that while I appreciate the block against Panel_2008, I think you may have the wrong idea of the situation. EconomistBR and the user who posted with his IP should not have been warned/blocked. Panel_2008 is a vandal, who continues to violate consensus, who brings no reliable sources to discussion, and concentrates his edits on nationalistic, biased POV. Proposal II was agreed on, and stopped months of edit warring. It solved all problems between most parties, and the only person who is violating it is Panel 2008. A page like this cannot exist without a proposal reached by consensus - it attracts too many uses who have nationalistic goals (if you understand geography, you'd understand that Central Europe includes some Eastern European countries - and E. Europe still having a negative connotation to it due to the Cold War, is a less desirable term than C. Europe). What EconomistBR and the IP user were doing were simply enforcing concensus - trying to get rid of Panel 2008's vandal edits. Panel 2008 has also been asked countless amounts of times to bring his OWN proposals and the rest of the users would vote on it - he declined, and has never really shown any reliable sources at all. All he continues to do is edit the pages to suit his nationalistic goals. My question is (since I'm somewhat new to the whole behind-the-scenes issues on Misplaced Pages): how much longer will it take for this user to get blocked from editing? It's been 2-3 months and we're all pretty tired of it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning unprotection of Pro-pedophile activism

Although I was hoping that, once the page was unprotected, editors would edit in a gradual cooperative manner to achieve consensus and would be cautious about introducing significant controversial changes, PetraSchelm has decided that the article is his or her own to mold to whatever he or she wants. Since unprotection, this editor has completely revamped the entire article, without getting any sort of consensus or giving other users time to address incremental changes. The article is now nothing what it used to be, and there's far too many individual changes to address in a gradual manner. I'm not sure how to deal with this situation, seeing as reverting to the version that was under protection would remove all the intermediate edits (some of which may indeed be legitimate), even those by another editor who did not introduce any radical controversial changes. What PetraSchelm did goes way beyond being bold - this is down-right disrespectful to all the editors who contributed countless hours to making this article what it was before this unilateral day-long editing spree to completely alter the article.

Your assistance is requested in regards to this new development. I regret to admit it, but I would personally recommend protecting the article anew, seeing as the message clearly did not sink in for PetraSchelm, and there is no easy or accessible way to assess or undo individual edits by this editor, since so much information and so many sections have been altered in such as short time, some beyond recognition. If protection is viewed as unfavorable, please remind PetraSchelm that unprotection was carried out on the assumption that editors would seek consensus prior to incorporating controversial edits. Likewise, time should be given for others to respond to proposals on the Talk Page and to new incremental edits to the article. It is unrealistic for PetraSchelm to expect everyone else to spend 24/7 watching and editing pedophilia-related articles in the manner he or she does. Most users simply don't have that kind of time, and don't have the opportunity to respond to dozens of consecutive edits, all carried out within the span of a single day. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Those edits look accurate and well-referenced to me. I didn't do much editing on the article today, but I did add several references and as I did so, I reviewed the changes and found them appropriate. Most of the changes appear directly related to the extensive talk page discussion that has been in progress during the time the article was protected. Petra has been asking for feedback on the talk page all along - the fact that others did not respond during the time of protection does not mean that the opportunity for discussion was not offered. Why did no-one respond and discuss while it was protected?

Any information that's incorrect or badly-referenced should be addressed. But just because it's different than it was before does not mean it's wrong. Solidly-sourced accurate material is what the encyclopedia needs.

I support the improved version as it is at the time I'm writing this note; also, I acknowledge that others may see it differently. The way to handle that is to review and discuss the edits, like any other article. These changes are not sudden, they've been on the talk page for weeks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What PetraSchelm has done is pretty much contest everything within the article and delete (or move to the Talk Page) whatever he or she doesn't like. When an editor questions every single word, without providing much significant consensus-backed reasoning for changing something, and does this at a 24/7 rate, it's no surprise that other editors would not respond to every single thing he or she posts on the Talk Page. Besides, even if posting on the Talk Page in the manner that PetraSchelm does is a sufficient notice of an edit, it is generally best to introduce significant controversial changes in a gradual manner, so that they can be assessed and addressed individually. Spending an entire day to revamp a contested article shows no respect to other involved editors, who may agree with some changes but not with others. Likewise, it's hard to keep up with an editor that lives and breathes pedophilia-related articles, when most users don't have that luxury of time.

Lastly, PetraSchelm did not gain consensus on or even discuss all the edits he or she recently introduced. For instance, where did this editor see any consensus to remove the entire "Scientific claims" section from the article? Outside of the newly started thread on the Talk Page, the only other section that addressed the concerns PetraSchelm had to this regard definitely had no clear consensus. Besides, presence of what one editor considers weasel words is not sufficient enough of a reason to remove a whole section. If the editor is worried about some particular words, it's up to him or her to address this concern, especially when others have already expressed their views on the issue. Considering that this is one of the longest-standing sections of the article, and there's more than enough supporting evidence for the passages in question, there's really no excuse for acting in a unilateral manner as did PetraSchelm. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire scientific claims section needs to be attributed (something even Daniel Lievre agreed with on his one day sojourn to the talkpage). I also noticed in the talkpage archives that this isn't the first time someone has pointed that out. Moving it to talk is a good impetus to get people work on attributing it/taking out the weasel words (We're not talking some weasel words--not once is anything attributed in that section, it's one "some argue..." after another.) And talkpage discussion was posted about that weeks ago, but not once did I see you address it or do any work on attribution...-PetraSchelm (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Here;s the discussion--more than two weeks old: -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm, within the very section you reference above, Daniel Lièvre attempted to find a way to address your concerns, but you would have none of it. Besides, you still haven't explained how moving the entire text of a long-standing well-sourced section is justified by concern over some possible weasel words. All the assertions within the passage are sourced, so I'm not sure what problem you see here. If you wish to improve the section, please do so, but there's no reason to completely remove it from the article and to expect others to do introduce changes on the Talk Page to address your personal concerns. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't "some weasel words," it's that without attribution it's a complete compilation of original research, as I stated in the discussion linked above (in which you have never participated, curiously enough). The onus is on those who would like to include information to show that it is verifiable. And I'm quite sure that if I went through the section, pruned it, and attributed it all to mhamic (which is the only source I know of that makes those arguments) there would be nothing but complaints. So if you know how to attribute some of those statements, why not work on that.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, Daniel Lièvre was almost immediately indef blocked for engaging in pedophile related disruption, so hardly an editor we should be looking up to. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this situation. Suggestions for the article have to be judged on their own merit, not based on who makes them. You surely know this by now. It doesn't matter what happened to Daniel Lièvre, because what is of concern here are his contributions to the discussion in question. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, you're glossing over the fact that even the immediately blocked pro-pedophile activist Daniel admitted the section needed to be attributed. Meanwhile, you seem to have done nothing on-wiki for the last 48 hours except complain about this in multiple locations, after never participating in the discussion, or doing anything then or now to attribute it so it's not original research... -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are msissing my point, which is that it was such comments that were, to my m,ind at least, part oft eh disruptive comments that got him blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that Petra thinks or acts as if she owns the article is an OTT reaction, IMO, Homologeo. Yes, she was being WP:BOLD butt hat is surely a good thing, and she has been trying to address the issues that have resulted in the totally disputed tag being ont he article for a year or so now. I strongly oppose re-protection based on what has happened to date, I am hoping to edit the article myself when I have a little more time over the next few days. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SqueakBox and also strongly oppose re-protection. Protection was needed due to the wave of sock-puppets and that situation has resolved.

For perspective: After protection was placed, it took a week or so to sort out the multiple sockpuppet issues. After the last sock was blocked on April 26, during the next 3 weeks there were around 110 posts talk page comments - approx half posted by PetraSchelm - that's a lot of comments offering opportunity for discussion of content. Of the remaining 50-some comments by others - a half-dozen were IP strangeness and several were about the page protection and not content related. That leaves around 40-some comments entered by 6 or 7 editors, including around six from me.

Those 55 or so talk page comments from PetraSchelm during 3 weeks of page protection did exactly what Homologeo wrote: " introduce significant controversial changes in a gradual manner, so that they can be assessed and addressed individually." If other editors chose not to respond, what does that show? Lack of concern? Tacit agreement? A belief that it's not worth discussing protected pages? I don't know that answers, but it's clear on the talk page that most of the content and referencing concerns she expressed did not receive replies.

While the edits were bold, they were not done without discussion or advance notice. PetraSchelm entered 55 or more comments discussing the edits in advance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out elsewhere, what PetraSchelm did is either criticize or remove from the article everything he or she didn't like. If involved editors have already established that something belongs in the article in its current shape, and the issue in question has been discussed a number of times before, there is no obligation for them to debate the issue time and time again. What's more, simply posting on the Talk Page does not equate to consensus. Likewise, it's quite likely that others chose to not respond due to possibly poorly justified criticisms the editor introduced. As for my own decision not to comment on much of the threads started by PetraSchelm - besides my lack of time to edit at this individual's rate, I do not have the necessary background to adequately address the technical issues presented. This is why I was waiting for individuals more versed in the research and texts to respond. On another note, a great deal of PetraSchelm's criticism is centered around his or her own discontent with particular sources, based on the claim that they are somehow inappropriate. Since these sources have been shown to be appropriate multiple times before by individuals who are sufficiently knowledgeable in the subject, my input would not have furthered the discussion that much.

Please also note that, even if some of the changes that PetraSchelm wanted to introduce were listed on the Talk Page in a gradual manner, there still has been no explanation for why the editor chose to introduce them all at once within less than a day after unprotection, knowing full well this would make it very difficult for others to judge incremental edits on an individual basis. What I'm concerned here is PetraSchelm overwhelming other editors and the article in general with his or her edits, making it hard for all of his or her changes to be properly evaluated. Truth be told, what matters is what happens to the article, not just what is said on the Talk Page, and PetraSchelm's editing conduct within the article is what I personally found disrespectful. Lastly, please do not assume my lack of involvement in editing the article or responding to very specialized issues listed on the Talk Page as a sign of apathy or as something else of that sort, because I have never claimed to have specialized knowledge of this subject. Unlike several other editors, I do not assert to have read many research studies, or to have done my own research within this topic area. What I'm concerned with is maintaining NPOV standards, watching out for civility, and assisting with general quality control on pedophilia-related pages. This is why most of my efforts go into critiques, rather than direct intervention with article content. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't want the article to be changed at all, so don't pretend that what you are objecting to is how it was changed, or when, or by whom, with what talkpage discussion-- you're on the record saying: Why fix something that's not broken? and Well, you're free to think what you want. I would personally contend that the article is doing just fine. As for your lack of involvement in editing the article or responding to very specialized issues listed on the Talk Page as a sign of apathy and This is why most of my efforts go into critiques--exactly. You don't edit the article, you don't discuss on the talkpage--you just complain. Sorry, Homologeo, but get over it. That article hadn't changed much in three years, it's had a "totally disputed" tag for a year, and it was about time for some changes. If there's some particular change you don't like, tell us about it instead of endlessly harping on the fact that changes were made and you wanted the article to stay the same forever. All articles change--it's called eventualism. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Many changes have occurred since I stumbled onto the Pro-pedophile activism page, and I have not contested edits that actually made sense, which were incorporated in a civil and respectful manner. As for my comment you mention - "Why fix something that's not broken?" - I still stick to it, and I honestly don't think the article was in that bad of a shape when you appeared out-of-nowhere and started trying to revamp it in its entirety. Next, please don't act as if I haven't contributed to the article over the time I have been involved with it - just checking the article's history or my contributions would suffice to demonstrate that I've contributed more than enough times. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, I tend to comment on the Talk Page on topics that I have some knowledge of or that deal with Misplaced Pages policies. When something is over my head, I don't interfere and never pretend to be any sort of expert. I think that's the smartest thing to do when an individual does not have specialized knowledge on a subject. Thus, what I usually focus on are the select areas where I am able to provide informative feedback and on critiques that center on Misplaced Pages policies. Sorry if you consider this to be "complaining." I simply do not intend to pretend to be an expert and to edit war in the way that you do.

Moving on to the "Totally disputed" tag - the reason this has been attached to the article is because a couple editors have been bent on ripping the article apart for quite some time now. One editor in particular has refused to follow consensus on countless occasions and has made it amply clear that he intends to get rid of anything he considers to be so-called "pro-pedophile propaganda." However, despite his exaggerated concerns, time and time again consensus of involved and outside editors has shown that his take on the situation is skewed and does not reflect the stance of most editors questioned on this matter. This is partly why the "Totally disputed" tag has remained on top of the article - to appease this individual. Granted, he probably honestly believes what he says, so he should be treated seriously, thus the tag legitimately remains. Furthermore, once in a while, some editors do come around (much like yourself) who do not like the way the article is structured. This is yet another reason the tag is there. However, since up to this point, most involved editors have concluded, on a number of occasions, that the select users who find the article problematic are mistaken, the article has kept more or less a consistent shape, while keeping the tag on-top to recognize that certain parties disagree with its content. Howbeit, presence of disagreement is not sufficient justification for completely revamping the article.

Finally, when I personally have the time to look into some of the multitude of edits you recently made (if I'm actually able to distinguish individual changes among them) and to research the issues on my own, I will indeed comment on, respond to, or possibly undo some of your contributions. All the while, my analysis (elucidated above) of your editing behavior since the unprotection of the article remains the same as before. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what I "consider to be complaining" is these ginormous rants on poor East's page. (Instead of editing or discussing on talk if there's some edit you object to). It's hard to tell, but the gist of the most recent rant seems to be that it's all one person's fault (Squeakbox, I presume?) that there's been a totally disputed tag in the article for a year? When I read through the talk archives, that hardly seemed to be the case, nor did it seem to be that "time and time again consensus of involved and outside editors has shown that his take on the situation is skewed and does not reflect the stance of most editors questioned on this matter." Maybe you should lay off the peevish book-length ad homs for a while and go have a nice cup of WP:TEA. -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While Petra has far from resolved the problems on the PPA article she does at least address the real issues and in a way that tends towards NPOV, and that is to be commended, especially in the face of such persistent opposition. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My talk page isn't dispute resolution. I don't have the time to sort this out now, but will hopefully get to it in a few hours. east.718 at 00:14, May 16, 2008

Deletion review for Image:Jersey £1.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Jersey £1.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.196.212 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have restored this image, but another administrator beat me to it. If you need help writing a fair use rationale, please see WP:FURG or model it off another coin's; Image:20pesos.jpg seems like a good choice. Don't hesistate to get back at me if you need any help. east.718 at 23:42, May 16, 2008

Doctor Wikipedian

Hi, you tagged Doctor Wikipedian as a sock of User:Dereks1x. I don't see where the a checkuser has been done though? I saw a page full of Dereks1x checkuser requests, but not with Doctor Wikipedian's name. As I wasted a lot of typing on that user, I'd like to look at the right confirmation - could you point me toward it, please? Aleta 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in, East. The ironic thing is that Doctor Wikipedian was practically begging everyone to do a checkuser (which I'm sure you know if you looked at his edits at all, since that's almost the only thing he did). Aleta 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe

You know, it's a minimum requirement before undertaking administrative action that you have some actual idea of what's going. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, you ought not to be giving out advice and/or blocks, nor blindly supporting other admins' actions.

I am reverting a long-running unilateral edit-warrior's tendentious edits, in the aftermath of mediation case worked out without the slightest assistance from said warrior -- and your only worry is about which 'i' is dotted and which 't' is crossed? That's there's some sort of equivalence here between one edit-warrior and 16 opposers?

There WAS no 'edit war' -- there was an upholding of a literal consensus. There was no call for blocks and no call for uninformed warnings. The slightest skim of the evidence would have told you otherwise -- yet, you couldn't be bothered. This is NOT the standard one expects from an administrator. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If there really was a solid consensus of "16 opposers", you shouldn't have to edit war. The correct way to go about things is to seek assistance from other editors, or in the case of a single disruptive editor to seek assistance from an administrator. Edit warring only escalates the disruption and will do nothing except get everybody involved blocked.

Derek's Laundry

Hi East718. The sock of Derek that you blocked (BVande) did apparently actually mail a copy of a drivers license ID'ing himself as a B. Vande to an admin. Given the history, I'm inclined to think forgery, but I was wondering if this is something that needs to be listed over at long term abuse or somesuch place. Best, --Bfigura 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi East. Thanks for taking care of the socks. I still do think it's odd that he keeps obtaining random licenses and using them to impersonate people: largely since I can't think of a legal way to do that. Has anyone considered forwarding this on to local law enforcement or postal inspectors? I know no one's really being harmed here (yet), but given that he's used multiple real or fake licenses, the potential seems to be there. (That said, I can't see what anyone would really do, other than file a report). Best, --Bfigura 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Joelster

ANI thread you might be interested in. --Elonka 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of talk pages...

If you're going to mass delete article talk pages that contain the genetics tag, please make sure they're not also tagged for other projects as well. Would you mind helping me by restoring these articles that you deleted? Many thanks. – ClockworkSoul 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :-( I was mass deleting John Bot's new pages only and must have hit some without the little "N" tag. east.718 at 22:54, May 17, 2008

No harm done. It's a good idea to take a look at pages before you speedy them though. :) – ClockworkSoul 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hello! You deleted the image "BMP-1 03.jpg" ‎and wrote "no source, no license". There was a source as well as it was a free public domain, so the image will be uploaded again!

Regards, Vladimir--Vladimir Historian (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI review of one of your blocks

ANI thread about one of your blocks. I think last time this happened you unblocked with unblock summary of "other participant in edit war has been unblocked" - since it has now been conclusively proven that Betacommand was the other participant in this latest edit war, and he has been unblocked, I suggest you do the same here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Olga Lehmann image deletion

East718, I noticed that you deleted, or commented on the deletion, of an image I uploaded to illustrate the Olga Lehmann entry. I would like to undo that deletion. As I'm the owner of the image, and have no copyright axes to grind about it, I shall attempt to reinstall it. However, I am not expert in the intricacies of this process, so my efforts may be a bit bungling, for which I hope you will forgive me, and if necessary, help me.

Thanks. Pahuson (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.164.189.135

Follow up... :) -- Cat 07:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Nothing444 block decrease?

You may have remember the block of the above user. Some users are asking on his talk page that he be unblocked in a year instead of indef. I don't know what you I can do but it would be better if you took care of this. Just thought I'd let you know. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Two people have said it as a "perhaps down the road..." kind of thing. But as far as I can see, there is no real desire to have this reduced. And this discussion were a few weeks ago. If there was a real desire, it would have been brought up vocally. Metros (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree but I would like East's opinions. Thank you.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite." We can always revisit blocks sometime later, although this one was supported by the community they'd have to consent to an unblock. If Nothing444 wants to be unblocked, there's several different avenues of appeal for them to take alone, but I think it's telling that instead of doing so, they went directly to Commons, where there contributions have been of similar quality to those here. east.718 at 09:18, May 19, 2008

Strongly opposed to any unbanning based on Commons contribs since ban and original contributions. Daniel (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I do agree that he still be indefinitely be blocked for now. Regards, RyRy5 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Void title

Let me know when you are online and plan to be that way for awhile, because I need to have a word with you. Basketball110 /_{Tell me yours} at 01:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no IRC client, nor email account, and don't plan on making any. I do, however, send Monk-E-Mails, but seeing as you cannot reply, the point is beyond gone. Basketball110 /_{Tell me yours} 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an email. Basketball110 /_{Tell me yours} 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

If I have no reason to apologize to you, then I should at least thank you. Joelster (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Heading

• Hey! Why did you block me?--3j4nt4 (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• So what if I'm a sock? I was just making conversation.--Linesnewly username (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• OK. What do you want to talk about?--James458 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• That's cool. Hey, you're all right. I don't care what they say. Take it easy.--Gloryrates bud (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area Last: 3/16/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I NEED MY PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I live for that page please give it back!!!!!!!!!! I need my page. PLEASE REVIVE MY PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Altenhofen (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

East? I'm assuming you'll say "no".--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find this message deeply, deeply amusing, considering I emailed them the source before they left it. ^_^ east.718 at 01:11, May 20, 2008

Ah. Do you mind explaining? I would just like to know more about this.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Administrators can view deleted pages, so I just took the last copy of the page and emailed it to them. I'm assuming they placed a lot of work into it, (misplaced in my opinion), so I wouldn't want to send anything that could be useful into the ether. The personal information needs to go and stay gone though. east.718 at 01:17, May 20, 2008

Oh, I thought the personal info was still there when I said "I'm assuming you'll say no". It should be good now. Thanks for clarifying.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I REVIVED IT. I WAS GOING TO FIX IT BUT IT WAS DELETED AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Altenhofen (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I know it wasn't in your intention (I think) but please don't capitalize all the letters in your comment. That is considered yelling and we may think you are loosing your WP:COOL. Thank you. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Altenhofen. please remember that Misplaced Pages is not MySpace. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Misplaced Pages project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Misplaced Pages is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. Please see Misplaced Pages:Introduction and Misplaced Pages:User page for more information.--Hu12 (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RUINED

my life is ruined because of all of you. I would say something imensely hurtfull or rude to you but I'm not that kind of person. I hope you are happy, I hate life right now and it is all your fault.Altenhofen (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, East? Is that a personal attack? I can't tell to quickly... RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is, I don't care. However, I'll repeat what I already told Antenhofen by email: that as soon as he promises not to repost personal information, he can have his page back. east.718 at 02:26, May 20, 2008

you have personal info you idiot.Altenhofen (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

and because of you.Altenhofen (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay? I have no personal info on my userpage. Nothing on my user page says my age, birth date, school (If I went to one), life, etc. Please remember that this is About|Misplaced Pages, the free encyclopedia, not a WP:MYSPACE. It's not that important to have user pages that has personal info. We frown on that. I redesign userpages myself. Their commonly used for item, links, etc. to help yourself contribute to wikipedia.-- RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

you are an idiot, I was talking to east.

the place you live is personal info. plus, I did not mention my school and I know tons of other people who have personal info on there page and no-one cares.

also, you a big bully and I hate you.Altenhofen (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to get off and eat supper now then cry myself to sleap because of what this guy did to me.Altenhofen (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)