Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:42, 9 May 2007

Archives

Current 2014: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q 2013: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2012: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2011: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2010: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2009: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2008: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2007: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q 2006: 1Q, 2Q, 3Q, 4Q

Re: Just dropping you a note

Thanks for pointing it out. I was going through dozens of articles in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with topics of unclear importance from January 2007 and was careless with that article ... I checked back only a few revisions. I'll be more thorough in the future. Thanks again, Black Falcon 06:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm terribly familiar with how easy it is to slip up. I've had to stop doing admin stuff past a certain time, as its obvious I shouldn't be deleting stuff when I'm tired. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Government Laboratory High School

Hi, I was just wondering if you could explain your edits to as you didn't on the edit itself.

I'm pretty new to wikipedia, so I'd like to understand stuff like this.

Thanks alot!

LookingYourBest 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing.

• {{cleanup}} was placed at the top of the article because it needs to be reformatted to match the manual of style.
• Image:school-monogram.jpg was moved to the right of the article so that it ate up less room; in general, it looks much better like that.
• {{fact}} was placed beside the "regarded as the best" comment because there's no source for the claim.
• The biggest edit was to remove the gallery. That is because all of the images had been deleted (by me) under speedy deletion criterion I4, meaning that they had no copyright tag for more than a week.

If you have any further questions, just let me know. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's great thanks and cheers for putting that stuff on my talk page! LookingYourBest 08:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, the previous editor has come back, removed all our cite tags, put his gallery back, but also added some extra stuff. Does that warrant a revert? LookingYourBest 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the images appear to be properly tagged now, so the gallery can stay. However, all of the maintenance tags should still remain; I've restored them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit of faith...

From here: Really, have a bit more faith in us poor admins. ;) Myself included? -- tariqabjotu 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's not my place to tell you to have more faith in yourself; that's for your psychiatrist. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, this comes at a time when there actually is a backlog on WP:AIV. I know these backlogs do happen, and perhaps quite often. However, what I was trying to say is that backlogs at WP:AIV always get cleared quickly. On the other hand, other backlogs, say at Category:Disputed fair use images, are never fully resolved. -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a fair enough clarification. I still don't see the "contest" as enducing an otherwise reasonable admin to start blocking non-disruptive editors (which is what I took as being your concern), but I will certainly agree that the AIV backlog in no way, shape, or form ever compares to the other admin backlogs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I have made a suggestion on how to help cut down on the admin backlogs. Much less controversial, and less dramatic, but I think it would be just fine if people would stop complaining about the size of the backlogs and start tackling them. (personally, I've cleared out four days worth of backlogs in the three days) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Chrislk02/archive02

Er, for the record, I've got all my talk page archives fully protected. I don't think it's particularly unusual. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd. Wonder why they're not showing up on Special:Protectedpages. Anyway, unusual or not, it's against policy and, as far as I can see, unnecessary. Adminship is a position of trust, not a right to privileges that other users don't have; that includes protection of arbitrary pages without reason. In other words, if non-adminstrators can't have their archives fully-protected (which they can't), why should anyone be allowed them? – Gurch 04:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound like an ass, but where is it against policy? I don't see anything wrong with it, but if there's a policy (not guideline) against it, I'll revoke the protection. The whole reason I locked them down is that I can't see a reason why someone would need to make any edits to them.
That is odd about Special:Protectedpages... archive 3 shows up, but none of the others do. However, in looking it over, it seems that I'm not the admin by a long shot that has locked down their talk archives. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... the protection policy is inclusive, rather than exclusive; it specifies what you can do rather than what you can't. From the policy:

Indefinite full protections are used for:

• High visibility pages such as the Main Page in order to prevent vandalism. This includes templates transcluded to these pages.
• The site's logo, press releases, and key copyright and license pages, for legal reasons. Admins should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion.
• Certain "system administration" pages, including many editorial, deletion and stub templates, and the entire MediaWiki namespace. These are pages that need rarely be changed, and that because of widespread usage can cause large-scale disruption if vandalized, or modified ill-advisedly. Again, admins should not make significant changes to these pages without prior discussion.
• Pages deleted by consensus that are repeatedly recreated. These are listed in either Category:Protected deleted pages or Misplaced Pages:Protected titles. Requests to overturn such a deletion should be made through the deletion review process.
• Personal css and js pages like User:Example/monobook.css or User:Example/cologneblue.js are automatically fully protected by the MediaWiki software. Only the account associated with these pages and admins are able to edit them.

Temporary full protections are used for:

• Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.
• A history-only review of the article during some discussions on deletion review.
• Preventing abuse of the {{unblock}} template or other disruptions by a blocked user on their user talk page.

User archives certainly aren't high-visibility, they're not part of the site's copyright/license pages, they're not Foundation press releases, they're not vulnerable templates, they're not in the MediaWiki namespace, they won't cause large-scale disruption if edited, they haven't been repeatedly recreated, they're not personal css or js pages, there have been no edit wars, no deletion reviews and nobody has abused {{unblock}} on them.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with semi-protection (though I think that's also unnecessary), because the policy allows for that (it lists: User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user. as suitable for indefinite semi-protection). Sorry if I'm being disruptive, but I am a little puzzled by what seems to be a more widespread tendency than I thought to fully protect what are among the least vulnerable pages we have – Gurch 11:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there's nothing in the policy (which you could have just linked to, rather than quote) that says I shouldn't, and it seems to be a semi-common occurrence among other admins, I can't say that I'm particularly convinced that I should remove it. Most importantly, it isn't doing anyone harm, and it doesn't affect the encyclopedia. If it did, I might reconsider, regardless of it not being spelled out in the policy.

If the policy changes, feel free to let me know and I will remove the protection, but in the meantime, I just can't get myself worked up about it; there are far too many things that do affect that encyclopedia to worry about (specifically, I'm trying to get admins to address the backlog situation).

Also, there's no need to apologize; you're doing what you can to address something you feel is a problem. I may disagree with you about it, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the effort. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User talk:HanzoHattori

Dear EVula, I am not involved in any issues related to HanzoHattori, but I often looked at his edits. I believe he is the best WP editor and fantastic expert on topics related to Chechnya and some other topics. Yes, he was uncivil with regard to a "phantom" user who every time appeared under different IP addresses to intentionally disrupt work of Hanzo. Please also take into account the cultural differences between people from different countries who work in Misplaced Pages. I think that two week punishment is too harsh. Would it be possible if you or another neutral administrator reconsidered his case and reduced the time of block? Sincerely, Biophys 02:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to bring it up on WP:ANI, be my guest (also, he can at any time put {{unblock}} on his talk page to get a third-party opinion). Considering how blatantly he was violating WP:CIVIL, though, don't expect the reaction to be much different than mine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My point was that he is an extremely productive and qualified editor who made more than 13,000 of edits, created perhaps ~50 new articles, and significantly improved many other articles (he worked with more than 2,000 of unique pages). I think he needs some help from other friendly editors to defuse any potential conflicts rather than a block for two weeks. I could try to talk with him and help, if he would accept my help.Biophys 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's ass how productive he is; such gross and blatant incivility is absolutely and utterly inexcusable. I've got over 16,000 edits and have worked on over 8,000 unique articles, but that doesn't mean I can all of a sudden start insulting people just for shits and giggles. There's no magic threshold that one can cross to make official policy irrelevant to that particular editor; WP:CIVIL applies to every anon, regular editor, admin... everyone.
Like I said, feel free to make a case for it at WP:ANI if you feel that I've been unfair. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Basically, this is none of my business. I myself have a bad experience with WP:ANI. So, I will do nothing unless Hanzo requests unblock. But there is something really strange with a user that appears every time from a different IP address and makes things that he did. Does not this anonymous user fall under the category of an aggressive sockpuppet?Biophys 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can tie an account back to the IP, it by definition can't be a sockpuppet. Also, given the fact that the information that Hanzo and the IP are arguing about is completely unsourced, an argument could be made that Hanzo was the one in the wrong.
There's also a violation of WP:OWN thrown into the mix and possibly WP:3RR as well, plus the fact that he's got a history of blocks for violating both 3RR and CIVIL repeatedly. That's three policies right there I can see violations on, coupled with ample evidence that this is chronic behavior; all in all, the block was thoroughly deserved, and the two week time span is an appropriate escalation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Name change

Thanks very much indeed!--Rambutan (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I assume that since you commented, you're watching that user's page.

Thank you for pointing out that Mr Tilman might have been filing a generic NPA warning, and not specifically on his own behalf. I read it and interpreted it to mean he was personally offended and felt attacked. Your alternate viewpoint is equally valid. However, my point wasn't specifically about who filed, as much as it was to address the fact that he stated that he had to assume it 'was' an attack (as opposed to having to assume it wasn't an attack), which would violate AGF.

I'll not defend anyone for being abusive or uncivil. We each must answer for our own transgressions.

However, I also assume, if you are watching the userpage, that you are familiar with the constant (and often frivolous) charges going back and forth of WP:NPA.

These charges are seemingly intended more to make a point and to provide a trail of bread crumbs, to be used later in more serious charges. That is only my opinion, based on the history I have seen and read since coming to wiki. It is not to be construed as a charge against any specific individual or group.

My experience is that users are collecting these WP:NPA charges off-wiki and then later produce a massive? list in order to substantiate more serious charges by showing an abusive pattern. When, in fact, much of that pattern is being manufactured.

The problem arises when the list is presented to admins in a more serious abuse case. Because admin time is valuable and limited, it is reasonable (in my opinion) to assume that not every single citation will be investigated for the full value of its merit. Thus, by presenting an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of a charge, it would be reasonable for an admin to conclude where there is smoke, there must be fire.

The articles that those two users are editing are highly emotionally charged and hotly contested. Tempers raise and sarcasm spills out. Sarcasm is not always a personal attack and I believe that users should not be so quick on the WP:NPA trigger. Sometimes its just venting frustration. If that venting violates wp:civil.. then it should be addressed.

When I see WP:NPA warnings, I read the material. If I disagree with the NPA charge, I say so. If I agree with it, I say that also. I have posted both agreement and disagreement comments for warnings posted by and against editors on both sides of that issue.

Thanks for your time. Peace in God. Lsi john 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fishy?

I saw and I have to ask.. You actually see a connection in my editing style, verbosity and english to another user here? Lsi john 11:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering your constant posting (and defending) on Misou's talk page, yes, I'd say it came across as a little odd (if only because he has confirmed socks; if he didn't, it probably wouldn't have occurred to me).
Given my experience with User:American Brit, who would interact with his own socks quite often, it seemed entirely likely. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm not aware of what was or wasn't proven. I repeatedly defend against repeated spurious attacks. I've defened other users as well. But thats a digression.

From what I can tell, his writing style is vastly different from mine. His temperment is also vastly different. Besides that he's CoS and I'm not. I suppose that can't be proven and if I'm him I could be lying about not being CoS. Though my edit history should establish that I'm not. And my userpage should also show a distinctly different idiology.

Even Smee backed away from the request.. though admitedly he waited until after the reprimand, which was amusing.

Thanks for responding.

Peace in God.

Lsi john 13:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)