| Revision as of 05:56, 18 October 2009 view source24.130.242.188 (talk) →Page on Sri Nithyananda← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:57, 18 October 2009 view source Gwen Gale (talk | contribs)47,788 edits →Page on Sri Nithyananda: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
| Gale, if feel it was unfair closing of this article in my view. Actually, there are so many articles in Misplaced Pages of unknown origin, or no followers, of various religions, with various sorts of claims. Why only this article is targeted? Shouldn't there be a vote on the article? If a person is part of the group of leaders of a large community, e.g. hindus, who is validated by other leaders, isn't he valid? Please do not use prejudices to exclude something. Edit or tag it as inappropriate. Curiously, I am researching for school, and this guy has a huge following in India. I am lead to think the editors had some biased prejudice? I have just read the following pages, that contain even more so called promotional material (with no appropriate references, or citing single books): Jesus, Islam, John Paul II, Anglicanism. There are even more. Instead of deleting could you mark sections that need to be improved? At least leave some information for my sake, as I would rather trust wikipedia, than an organization's page... | Gale, if feel it was unfair closing of this article in my view. Actually, there are so many articles in Misplaced Pages of unknown origin, or no followers, of various religions, with various sorts of claims. Why only this article is targeted? Shouldn't there be a vote on the article? If a person is part of the group of leaders of a large community, e.g. hindus, who is validated by other leaders, isn't he valid? Please do not use prejudices to exclude something. Edit or tag it as inappropriate. Curiously, I am researching for school, and this guy has a huge following in India. I am lead to think the editors had some biased prejudice? I have just read the following pages, that contain even more so called promotional material (with no appropriate references, or citing single books): Jesus, Islam, John Paul II, Anglicanism. There are even more. Instead of deleting could you mark sections that need to be improved? At least leave some information for my sake, as I would rather trust wikipedia, than an organization's page... | ||
| * ]. | |||
| See ], ], also the guideline ]. I think likening the notability of ] to this topic is far beyond the pale, but I guess you already know that. ] (]) 12:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:57, 18 October 2009
 | Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why. |
| If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge. |
Talk archives
| |
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 |
98.100.198.100
Gwen, you blocked 98.100.198.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) about a month ago for vandalism to Jimbo's userpage. Looking at the previous contribs before the sudden vandalism, there seems to have been some good faith edits in there, which leaves me to believe that the IP the vandal was on has probably been reassigned by now, especially after about three weeks of the current block. I'd be willing to unblock if this has occurred. What do you think? MuZemike 18:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done, it's worth a try. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thinking of blocks, how's this appeal? No, I'm not suggesting that you act on it -- indeed, it's clear that you shouldn't, precisely because I was the blocqueur and am bringing it to your attention -- but there's something remarkable, I think, about an appeal that is no more than a quotation from Jonathan Swift but, uh, manages to be (a) gruesomely mangled and (b) attributed to a misspelled Swift. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Neat coincidence: guess what book I was just starting to re-read. Indeed: Swift's original was a bit better worded. Antandrus (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I once dropped by a showbiz office in Century City which had what they called a "dunce desk," a tawdry little thing on wheels where the lazy, heedless and/or clueless were banished for one last go at redeeming themselves. By the bye, I was told only men ever wound up there (I glark not because women can't be dunces, but rather more likely because nobody ever had the guts to send one there :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk page guidelines
Hello. As I understand it, WP:BLP asks us to remove potentially libellous or problematic material about a person from anywhere, but not to remove comments about an article itself from the talk page (which is what it's for). Also, it's best to ignore trolls rather than encourage them by reverting, isn't it? Shreevatsa (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- WP:RBI. WP:BLP. Unsourced negative content about living persons is scythed wherever and whenever it shows up on en.Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but WP:RBI is about vandalism, and that comment was a legitimate (if paranoid) comment about the article-writing process; there was nothing there that could be construed as libellous about the living person in question (RMS). I'd imagine that reverting will only increase the paranoia. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're the one who said troll, not me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, yes — but with an "also", to clarify that it is a general question and disclaim any direct bearing on the current issue. ;-) My question is, is it ok to just remove complaining comments like this one from talk pages just because they are on articles about people? It would make things a whole lot easier, but somehow it doesn't seem right. (On the other hand, I guess this comment could be considered a "personal attack" on other editors. I still don't see the BLP connection, though, since the "cult followers" are unnamed and vague.) Shreevatsa (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unsourced negative content about living persons is scythed wherever and whenever it shows up on en.Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Look, I hope I'm not annoying you, but that is exactly what I'm asking. Has that happened here? Was there "unsourced negative content" about RMS in that comment? I don't see it, but if you think so, then yes, it should be removed (but should the rest of the comment be removed as well?) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:NOTAFORUM. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your extraordinary patience and willingness to explain. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. WP:NOTAFORUM. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Look, I hope I'm not annoying you, but that is exactly what I'm asking. Has that happened here? Was there "unsourced negative content" about RMS in that comment? I don't see it, but if you think so, then yes, it should be removed (but should the rest of the comment be removed as well?) Shreevatsa (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Unsourced negative content about living persons is scythed wherever and whenever it shows up on en.Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, yes — but with an "also", to clarify that it is a general question and disclaim any direct bearing on the current issue. ;-) My question is, is it ok to just remove complaining comments like this one from talk pages just because they are on articles about people? It would make things a whole lot easier, but somehow it doesn't seem right. (On the other hand, I guess this comment could be considered a "personal attack" on other editors. I still don't see the BLP connection, though, since the "cult followers" are unnamed and vague.) Shreevatsa (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're the one who said troll, not me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, but WP:RBI is about vandalism, and that comment was a legitimate (if paranoid) comment about the article-writing process; there was nothing there that could be construed as libellous about the living person in question (RMS). I'd imagine that reverting will only increase the paranoia. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 12 October 2009
- From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
- Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
- Bing search: Bing launches Misplaced Pages search
- News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Misplaced Pages at Yale, and more
- Dispatches: Sounds
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Apollo 11 - quick block.
wow, I wish I could do that so quickly!
Hope you're well.
Regards. Leaky Caldron 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey! Very short, low key block, looked like giggling kids having a lark with "test edits." Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
1999 Football League First Division play-off Final
Hi there. I was looking to re-create this article, but thought I'd check with you first.
My guess is that the article you deleted was little more than a trivial mention of the match, with at most the scoreline, the two teams and the lineups, and therefore was correctly deleted. Provided it is properly sourced and substantial enough, I believe it is notable enough to have an article, as evidenced by equivalent matches linked to from this template. I also believe that if I start the article, I will add enough to it for it to be meaningful- this and this are examples of articles I've created. I'm planning on starting work on it in my Sandbox over the next day or so, but just thought it best to notify you before putting it onto the mainspace. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- The deleted article had no text, only some categories and a transclusion. Ten months ago, an editor tagged it and I did the speedy. If you think an article can be had there, please do as you think fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I thought as much. As it was deleted I thought it was worth double-checking anyway. Thanks, WFCforLife (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Help!
You seem like a neutral pov type of editor, if history is an indication. Right now a sign up team from here, and some others are ganging up on me here and also here. This seems like a strange way to try to solve a perceived problem. A request for comment about an article being over sourced in my opinion Sustainability, to a not neutral political pov would be a better approach. Also a user is taking material from blog/forums (Lawrence Kwhoo) to use as demeaning or attacking material, one who seems to have a personal vendetta about mainstream having weight, he is linking material like this stuff This seems very wrong to me, and it is noted that skip sievert is an avatar name. He has also negatively canvased people also in other venues in my opinion here
I am not a perfect editor, but I try to follow policy and guidelines. Right now this is not working in regard to trying to deal with numbers of the editing team that want my voice removed from an article. My interests and what I edit on Misplaced Pages is broad. I feel like one little group is targeting me currently with this situation. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Page on Sri Nithyananda
Gale, if feel it was unfair closing of this article in my view. Actually, there are so many articles in Misplaced Pages of unknown origin, or no followers, of various religions, with various sorts of claims. Why only this article is targeted? Shouldn't there be a vote on the article? If a person is part of the group of leaders of a large community, e.g. hindus, who is validated by other leaders, isn't he valid? Please do not use prejudices to exclude something. Edit or tag it as inappropriate. Curiously, I am researching for school, and this guy has a huge following in India. I am lead to think the editors had some biased prejudice? I have just read the following pages, that contain even more so called promotional material (with no appropriate references, or citing single books): Jesus, Islam, John Paul II, Anglicanism. There are even more. Instead of deleting could you mark sections that need to be improved? At least leave some information for my sake, as I would rather trust wikipedia, than an organization's page...
See WP:BIO, WP:N, also the guideline WP:COI. I think likening the notability of Jesus Christ to this topic is far beyond the pale, but I guess you already know that. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)