Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:51, 30 June 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

Ted Turner and the NASL's Atlanta Chiefs

Dick Cecil, Al Thornwell and Ted Turner formed a group that purchased the failing Colorado Caribous franchise in 1978 of the NASL and moved it to Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium for the 1979 season and renamed them the Chiefs. While this failed attempt at soccer in the deep south was a blip in the Ted Turner biography as a whole and not mentioned in the wiki, nonetheless he was an NASL executive.(see ref here ) My point obviously being, that just because this info isn't in Turner's wiki-bio doesn't mean that the Category:North American Soccer League (1968–84) executives should not include Turner. Since I try to refrain from cyber-disagreements where editors change each other's edits, I'd ask you to please revert back to my edit of Ted Turner, if you think my case for his inclusion in the category is just. Thanks and have a great day! Creativewill (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming here rather than reverting. Unfortunately, the general rule is that categories must be supported by material in the body: "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." (WP:CAT). Now the "rule" is a guideline, so theoretically it can be overriden by a clear consensus. To do that, you'd have to go to the article talk page and open up a topic on the issue. I would be against it, so I'm not going to restore the category, but I can't speak for other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I alluded to, the way many people behave on wikipedia seems childish to me. It's so much easier to discuss things, rather than fight. As a side note to your comments above... perhaps you should also consider removing the Atlanta Thrashers executives category from the page for the time being, as I see no mention of that franchise in the Turner article either. I think the bigger point I was trying to make by inclusion of the NASL category though is that Turner has had a hand in nearly every pro sports franchise in the Atlanta market at one time or another (Braves, Hawks, Chiefs and Thrashers). Maybe the Ted Turner bio needs a section added called "Sports team ownership" or expand the baseball to "Atlanta Braves and other sports team ownership", because in this regard he is very much like Lamar Hunt, Wayne Huizenga and a few others. Just a thought. Glad to have a civil dialogue as well. -cheers- Creativewill (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Solow

Why did you just delete all my work? If you're confident that "the image is a copy-right violation" then you are welcome to remove it, but why did you revert the whole thing as if you own the article? It's not an advertisement like you think, I'll now simply go over it and make sure it looks more neutral. Yambaram (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you deleted my edits again because of lack of reliable sources. I forgot to add this link to the article, which I took a lot of information from - look at my version and you'll see that every statement is backed up by that source.. So is that good enough now? Waiting for a response this time, thanks Yambaram (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your new source is not reliable; it's mostly a blog and partly derivative of other unreliable sources. It can't be used in support of anything. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Philip L. Clarke

Am not trying to attack you in any way, just want to ask you. Can we accept Philip L. Clarke's death reference, when it is very similar to the references we rejected for Joan Gerber. Guess just want to know of your opinion on the Philip L. Clarke agenda. Radiohist (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, we can't. I've removed the death year from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Jamie Barton

I hope this is how to contact you back...

It seems funny that the Cardiff Singer of the World wiki page could make similar assertions without references (ever think to check yourself? Would've taken 30 seconds...) and since I updated this literally as the award was announced, it was perhaps rather hasty to revert edits? Anyway, the source is now linked to. Have fun trawling through it, it will take you about an hour.

PS, someone else actually made the assertion that she was the first woman to win, that's why there were multiple IP addresses. It wasn't just me posting. 77.97.23.235 (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That's really very funny (the part about her being the second person in history and "trawling"). Thanks for clarifying the part about the IP addresses; that was an assumption on my part. I did finally check myself, but only because otherwise I figured you or someone else would just keep adding the unsourced material. My job (I'm an administrator) is generally to enforce compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, not to fix the content in articles. As for updating the article the moment it was announced, there was no urgency to do it. Everyone (not just you) thinks that Misplaced Pages has to be udpated as soon as the news hits the streets. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, although sometimes, unfortunately, it acts like one. Contacting me back here was fine, but generally if I leave a note on your talk page, I "watch" your talk page so I can reply there. Not important, though, you're just trying to be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of Graphite (software)

Could you WP:USERFY the article on "Graphite_(software)" please. I'll set about making it good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelTLewis (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you're a new user and all, but having read the deleted "article", it certainly was an appropriate deletion. WP:FIRSTARTICLE will be important reading for you, as will WP:PROMO, WP:NCORP and WP:AGF (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael, if you want to read the article go to http://graphite.wikidot.com/faq#toc0 and read the section "What is Graphite?". That section was the article word for word. GB fan 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• Michael, given that GB fan has established that the brief article was a copyright infringement (which I missed), it can't be userfied. And as BWilkins said, why would you want to resurrect the article anyway? Finally, the whole thing strikes me as pretty weird. The article was created by User:Axelabs, a relatively new account. You, on the other hand, created your account back in 2007, and your first and only edit is this one to my talk page. What's that all about?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Earth100

You may wish to comment on the section entitled Reblock on Earth100's talkpage. Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Brad Pitt

I'd hate to break it to you, but the first 2 sentences in the last paragraph in Pitt's header sound terrible. I'm talking about the lines having to do with past and current relationships. It just sounds awful, I'm sure that can be worded better.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to take a stab at editing it if you think it can be improved. The only reason I reverted your edit was what I said in my edit summary. Honestly, material about actors' relationships are almost always a mess. BTW, the Pitt article is a featured article, so we have to be extra careful as to what we include and how it's articulated.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I just wanted to point out it seemed very poorly worded. Personally, I think the only relationship that needs mentioning in the header is his current relationship. I really don't see any reason why mentioning his past relationships in the header is important, they are already in his personal section. It's just repeating the same information. What do you think?Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you have two choices. One would be to boldly change the lead the way you think is more appropriate. If someone reverts you, you should then go to the talk page (in other words, don't revert back). The second choice is to open up a discussion on the lead on the talk page without making any changes to the article itself. I agree with you that it's poorly worded as is, but it's harder to decide what should be included, even if it's better written. If asked my opinion, I would probably remove the entire paragraph from the lead. I would certainly remove the part about the children and I'd pare down the Paltrow/Aniston material to almost nothing. But that's just my opinion; a consensus would be better.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't you agreeing with me enough grounds to change it? What do you think the best thing to do here is?Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion really belongs on the article talk page, not on mine.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

After looking at it closer, I kind of agree with you about just removing the whole paragraph.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A disturbing pattern

Now that some time has passed, I would like to discuss the issue of the Microsoft Office 365 article. It is quite clear that you have been vociferously defending User:ViperSnake151's version of the article against those editors (myself and at least one IP editor) who dare oppose it. I would like to know the following:

1. Why are you doing this?
2. Do you not realize that administrators are not to take sides in editing disputes?
3. Have you even read the talk page, and if so, why have you seemed to ignore the discussion there?
4. Why did you claim that I had made three reverts when it was extremely obvious that I had only made two?
5. Do you not realize that removing content without proper justification is, if not outright vandalism, definitely controversial editing that must be supported by consensus?

Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to ask me questions, but you'll have to find a less charged, confrontational way of doing so if you want answers.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hollingsworth

I'm not sure exactly what you mean; reading the decision, I was under the impression that the ruling explicitly overturned the Cal Supreme Court's holding that California state law allowed initiative sponsors to defend the law. But if you do not believe that is the case (along with whatever changes you may believe would be better), feel free to change it. Instead of doing a blanket revert, just alter the parts you think should be changed. Then we can have a discussion about it. --haha169 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a revert is a revert, regardless of whether I revert only part. Where did you get that impression from?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Men's rights movement/Article probation

Posted after your post in the Sanctions section regarding William Jockusch. Moving here as a more appropriate venue. KillerChihuahua 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What we really need is a talk page of the talk page. :-) I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this now. As I recall, I addressed Mike's comment somewhere else at the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh, if it's been addressed, then it's been addressed. No need to re-address it. I don't think we need a talk page of the talk page... I think that would lead to Yet More Useless Complaining. I could be wrong, though. KillerChihuahua 19:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• BBB, take a look at his recent edit at Feminism - clearly a "men's rights" NPOV/FRINGE violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • So, let me get this straight. It is apparently consistent with Misplaced Pages policies, not a slur, not at all sanctionable, and generally entirely fair to apply the hate-inducing label "Misogynist" entire unspecified sectors of the MRM. However, a factual summary of sexist remarks by a certain journalist is fringeism, and OrangeMike thinks it should be sanctioned.William Jockusch (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Someone is not giving up: Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't get it, please explain.

• Fact: I want to discuss topic X (BMK's conduct)
• Fact: Other people want to discuss topic Y (white space)
• Fact: Topic Y is discussed elsewhere, where it belongs.

Now when people continue to discuss Y against my expressed wished, why would you use it as a reason to close the complaint? In fact, I do discuss Y on the MOS talk page, and there is no mention of blocking anybody, just a content debate. How could this be a reason to ignore BMK's behaviour?

Honestly, I don't understand. Please try to make me smarter about the WP ways. Thanks! --91.10.34.128 (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Corina

See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#TALK pages for CORINA (Singer) - you are named as one of those involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Why is she now editing not logged in? I don't think I have anything useful to say that I haven't already said, but I'll add comments about her registered account and about WP:IDENT.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Earth100

Regarding the conclusion of the SPI, do you think talk page access should be restored? The socking was the deciding factor in my removing it, but I'm not quite motivated to restore it, since he was basically denying everything. --Rschen7754 07:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the trigger for the revocation of the talk page access was the recent activity of Earth200. It has now been confirmed that Earth200 is not Earth100. Therefore, I've changed the tag on Earth200's talk page to match the recent SPI. However, I'm leaving the tags on Earth100 and Earth101's user pages. WilliamH said that Earth101 was stale, but Earth101 was blocked based on a CU back in December 2012. Therefore, I'm going to assume (I suppose I'd have to ask DeltaQuad to be sure) that Earth100 and Earth101 are the same individual. My feeling is you should restore talk page access because the revocation was because of Earth200 and Earth100's bombastic reaction. If I were to guess, I'd say that Earth100 will probably say something in the future to justify revoking again, but I don't think it's fair not to restore it at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just going to throw this out there, as I was at one point asked to mentor and participated in a discussion ... he reminds me a lot of User:Starship9000, who was blocked after not improving through my adoption course and frequently asking to be let free. I doubt they're socks, but they are similar. Starship was indeffed, and then eventually banned across the wikis. I worry that Earth may follow that path if he finds an alternate project (i.e. Simple). Just my two cents. Restoring talk page access can't hurt ... at the end of the day, WP:DENY could come into play. Go Phightins! 12:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Starship was blocked for a year, Phightins, not indeffed. Or, at least, that's his current situation. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since, I think he's been indeffed globally. Don't quote me on that, though. Go Phightins! 14:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Talk page access was restored. And Starship9000 was globally locked, not blocked - meaning that he cannot login. His IP has also been globally blocked a few times, and blocked on Meta too. --Rschen7754 16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Need file undeleted

Can you please assist me in bringing back an SVG file to Misplaced Pages. The issue is the article Arms of Canada. For years we have had a highly detailed accurate SVG of the image under the name File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg here on Misplaced Pages under a non-free use rationale. Then last night it was replaced with a horrible version from Commons, and the SVG got deleted. Naturally that Commons file was not accepted, but because the SVG was deleted, now the article is using a blury PNG version of the image which you can see there now. Please use your admin powers to restore the SVG under it's non-free use rationale. Fry1989 18:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Fry. Unfortuately, you're out of my depth. Even assuming I can do what you wish, I'm not sure I'm supposed to. I recommend you contact User:Moonriddengirl, a wonderful admin and a copyright guru.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I assure you it was only a matter of use, not copyright, but I'll go ask who you recommend. Fry1989 01:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw your post on her talk page; thanks for your understanding.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:William Jockusch & Talk:Men's rights movement

Hi Bbb23, sorry to bother you but User:William Jockusch has just opened an RFC to remove sourced content at Men's rights movement, on the basis that:

As a reader who happens to like the idea of men's rights, this sentence feels like a slur aimed at me personally.

This user has already been blocked for a 1RR breach (by you) and this attempt to WP:CRUSH well sourced content they don't like using process is the thin end of the wedge. Would you have another look--Cailil 18:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Templates and VisualEditor

Hey Bbb23

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Schools Misplaced Pages

Before I take this all the way to WP:ANI or something, I was wondering if you have an opinion about this comment by a user who has been removing "explicit content" from certain articles, and then self-reverting. Is this harmful to the project? Useful? Neutral? Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I personally think it's downright weird, but I do see some material (old) about it at the Wikimedia Foundation website. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers knows more. Otherwise, if I were going to take it anywhere, I'd take it to WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Lift of Stay in CA Same Sex Marriage

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/28/justice/california-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

California's attorney general is right now marrying same sex couples at San Francisco City Hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predictor92 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Great, feel free to update the section again, but you need to put the source in the article, not just in an edit summary. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You taught me something new

Hi triple B. I just wanted to thank you for teaching me something (without even realizing you were doing so). You made this revert. When I read what the edtior had changed, my immediate reaction was, to put it bluntly, "WTF". Haha. So I thought to myself... If I had made that revert, what would my edit summary have been? Honestly, I don't what the best thing to say is when someone makes edits that are simply non-sensical. But now I know, because of you: "These are not helpful changes". Simple, courteous and on-point. And it made me laugh, too, so that was a bonus. ;) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I try to judge each edit on its merits. In this particular case, my sense was the editor was trying to be constructive, so I didn't want to bite her head off, but it was hard to come up with a policy-based edit summary, so that was the best I could think of. BTW, I enjoyed your self-revert on the MOS:LQ business - very decent of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly... the editor obviously meant well, and technically didn't violate any policies or guidelines. It was just one of those shake-your-head kind of edits, which makes it more difficult to decide what to say. So nicely done. As far as my self-revert, thank you for saying that. It's funny because I used to see editors being reverted a lot by experienced editors for putting the period inside the close-quote for a partial quotation. The edit summary was always similar; that the period should only go inside if it is a complete sentence being quoted. But in studying the relevant policies again, I found there's quite a bit of gray, so I said to myself... Bbb is far more experienced than me, so I'll go with his judgment on this one. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It's about time I got some respect. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh, you deserve it... once in awhile. :p Wow, OrangeMike just got hammered by some admin named Jehochman in the help desk discussion. I had to respond because these attacks before Mike's even had a chance to reply are ridiculous. I barely know the guy, but I would defend anyone's right to have a chance to discuss a problem before they're reported or insulted somewhere. Anyway, I hope you have a great weekend! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Moni Aizik

Hi! One editor asked for a proof that Moni Aizik was Carlos Newton's teacher. I provided the proof. Why did you remove it? Romayan (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Any way, I re-edited it so that it won't be a "puffery"Romayan (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Then you inserted more puffery in the form of multiple pics with questionable permissions. BTW, why are you accusing this editor of having a personal beef with Aizik like you did here with me? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks to Romayan for toning down the language and Niteshift's removal of the picture and other refinements, the article looks okay now. @Romayan, the only thing your inappropriate post to Niteshift's talk page indicates is that you have an apparent conflict. I suggest you avoid baseless accusations; they'll only get you in trouble. And treat lightly on the article in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Saw it

Triple B, what are you doing and why are doing it with that tone? I left an edit summary explaining I'm discussing it at Todd's talk page. Do you hate me now all of a sudden? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, ironically, I didn't even notice it was you. Don't edit war over the template until and if the issue you raise is resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.funwhileitlasted.net/2013/05/12/1979-1981-atlanta-chiefs/