Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:25, 24 December 2007

I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

Hey

Illegitimi non carborundum. Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, well, they have a point. If you don't write articles you get awfully jaded. I just started three - Watkins Shaw, E. H. Fellowes and Walter Alcock, and I feel much happier. I can't believe we didn;t have articles on Watkins Shaw and Fellowes, those were two pivotal figures in 20th Century British music scholarship. Maybe we have them and I did not find them at the titles I checked. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disappoint you, but we have Edmund Fellowes. Feel like carrying out a merger? This is why creating redirects is important. It helps stop people writing duplicate articles. The other two seem to be unique creations. The following also need updating at some point: Alcock (your Alcock can be added here), Fellowes (needs a hatnote or turning into a redirect), Shaw (surname) (your Shaw can be added here), Harold W. Shaw (redirect), Walter G. Alcock (redirect). Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad we have Fellowes, I could not find it with Google. I will merge them, thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I keep wanting to write something new but everybody always beats me to them.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know exactly what you mean. I find maybe fifty or sixty articles of interest every day, read them, and conclude that I can't really add anything. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• So, a little question: I have a reproduction of a photograph of Fellowes, the original published around 1945 by the Windsor, Slough and Eton Express without attribution of the photographer's name, and the reproduction in a book published in 1955. It would easily pass fair use, there being no free alternative available, but is it copyright expired? Guy (Help!) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the US, no. I believe 1923 is the magic year of public domain here. spryde | talk 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's British. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

* Hmm. British publication. US Servers. This is why I don't dabble in images more than I have to :). Ok, According to this it is 1923 is pretty much all countries (subject to local override). Britain looks to be life of author + 70 but I am not sure if the picture is subject to crown copyright or not. The sourcing on that article is poor. spryde | talk 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh bugger, I can't find anywhere near 1,500 words on Philip Hayes, and having been noted as the fattest and worst-tempered man in England, said reputation having survived for over two centuries, really does deserve to be on DYK! Guy (Help!) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Try this and this. You should be able to get it up to 1,500 words (exlcuding references and formatting) with those materials. Merry Christmas! spryde | talk 12:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I need to visit one of those buildings with big blocks of dead tree, if I can remember what they are called. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not a clue. I think I started an article about one though :) spryde | talk 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Guy

I know we have our differences, but it's never personal with me, and I genuinely hope you have a relaxing and refreshing holiday season. Best regards, Mr Which??? 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you - and over here we call it Christmas :-) Guy (Help!) 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As do I, but not everyone does, and I didn't wish to offend. Best, Mr Which??? 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured, I am not likely to be offended by the mention of Christ at this time of year. Five carol concerts plus two special services, no ambiguity there... Guy (Help!) 21:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just been singing Christmas carols to my wife, and she definitely didn't know any of them. I blame it on the Catholics myself. Anyway Thank God for the BBC Christmas Eve Carol concert that will be playbackable on the BBC Radio Player. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Carols from King's, an unbroken tradition since nineteen hundred and frozen to death. It has a lot to answer for: generations of inept boy trebles forced to sing the first verse of Once In Royal David's City... Me, I'm listening to Bach (Radio 3 did a whole Christmas of nothing but Bach a couple of years back). I have an audition for the Reading Bach Choir next term, singing the St. Matthew Passion. Not sure what to sing for the audition, it should probably be something baroque, maybe I'll do For behold, darkness shall covered the earth and the aria The people that walked in darkness form the Messiah, since I know them well. I'm also doing the Brahms German Requiem next term, and planning a music exam, and learning the baritone solos in the Fauré requiem for a performance in June. Likely to be busy, which is good. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bach's Oratio is undoubtedly my favourite from that prodigious master, indeed I have just put it on, but its not music I normally relate to Christmas, probably because I first learnt to love it one spring May. I guess 5000 miles from Old Blighty and 5 years since I spent Christmas there (as I just reminded my Mum, who knows a thing or two about music, via Skype) I am just feeling nostalgic, cos I knew all the nwords to the old favourites by the time I was 8 years old when I was lucky enough to be chosen to give the Isaiah "unto us a king is born" reading for a Christmas carol concert. But generally Schubert and Beethoven are my favouriteas in this rich genre called classical. Feliz Navidad. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Now playing: Victor Hely-Hutchinson's Carol Symphony. Next up: Benjamin Britten, A Ceremony of Carols. Great music, pity I'm so down on the whole Christmas Day thing really. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• And in another world: last week I was in my tiny adopted California hometown, and it was time for Christmas in Kernville. In the pouring rain (it turned to snow the following night), the local vocal ensemble had us all singing carols. When it came to "Silent Night", one of the women jokingly suggested we do it in German. I foolishly piped up in agreement, and Cheryl (the ringleader) exclaimed, "OK, we'll do three verses in English and then Josh will sing one in German." So all of a sudden, here I am with a bunch of mostly pretty serious Christians, with a live-action creche scene being enacted next to us, singing Stille Nacht, Heilige Nacht solo. Luckily for me (and the listeners) Cheryl had picked a good key. Apparently it went well; several of the ladies got all weepy. My wife said to our neighbor, "Nothing demonstrates Christmas in Kernville better than a Jew singing Silent Night in German." First time I'd soloed that song since before my voice changed in 1966... --jpgordon 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you get my message above ...

About the Phantom Organist links? Graham87 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but I have not had time to look into it further yet. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot issues

"most genuinely valuable contributors". You might want to go back to AN/I and subtantiate that. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to say I respect you JzG, you always seem like the voice of reason, and I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said during the Dorava fiasco (though I disagree in principal and I supported Giano's arb candiacy). I was worried and dispirited when you almost left a few months ago (can't remeber which month). So look, I'm venting at a wider issue; Im not angry at you in paticular. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand. The thing is, if the bot flags an image as lacking valid source or FU justification, there are I think three possible scenarios: it's wrong, in which case you take it to the admin boards and see why it's wrongly identified an article; it's right and you fix the problem by adding a better rationale, or it's right and you try to fix the problem by bitching about it. Of these, the last is spectacularly ineffective but does seem to be the most commonly used. Misplaced Pages is bloated out with unfree images whose use is doubtful per copyright law and fair use caselaw. It's not an easy problem to fix, the only way to fix it is by everybody being fundamentally onside and working together. Sadly some people seem to dispute the need to remove gratuitous unfree content, hence the problem. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I find a number of flaws in that line of reasoning, but I'm going to cool off and head back to content for a bit. I'll take it up later, but thanks though for being reasonable and discussing it with me. Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure, it's a very simplistic treatment of the subject, but I do think that, broadly speaking, decent contributors accept at least that the policy on unfree content exists and for good reason, and will make efforts to comply. I've been Betacommandbotted more than once, the unfree content requirements are shifting all the time, but I don't think the problem is the bot, it's that too many people don't actually know that uploading unfree content is a problem. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats not listening; thats an excuse, rationalision, and v v patronising. Also you are trying to reduce a broad protest into a narrow issue. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ on that. I have seen an awful lot of complaints about bots, editors and admins enforcing policy on unfree content; in pretty much every case I can recall the problem was precisely as identified (lack of rationale, improper license, missing copyright holder information or whatever). Someone who leaves the project because we keep removing unfree content they add is not, in my view, the best kind of editor; anyone who cannot or will not provide a proper fair-use rationale for an image can get lost. This is, of course, not what happened to the editor in question; there, it seems to me, an admin excessively focused on a specific problem failed to identify wood due to excess of trees. An error of judgment. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a very nuanced and rationalised agrument; congratulations. But it dodges the wider issue here. Sorry to be so blunt; but are content editors expendable, and do the ends justify the means. (sorry for the appaling spelling bty!, and remember Im not angry at you per say, I'm just wondering) You are by some distance the most open and responsive high up person, so that is why I'm asking. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be a frustrating degree of the opponents of fair use constantly tossing up hoops for uploaders of fair use images to jump through; however, on the numerous occasions I've been presented with such templates on my talk page I've actually followed Guy's recommended behavior and (imagine that!) not gone and griped and whined about it, but did my best to remedy whatever condition was being flagged at the time (or, in a few cases, failed to do so and had my images quietly deleted). *Dan T.* (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See, wherever I look on Misplaced Pages I see the word "free". Misplaced Pages, the free encyclopaedia. Unfree content is not free; we tolerate it to a limited degree. Some people seem philosophically opposed to removal of unfree content, others are philosophically opposed to its inclusion. The middle ground is a limited, cautious use, consistent with a conservative interpretation of copyright law. And that is going to change over time, because the profile of Misplaced Pages is now vastly higher than it was, and we are therefore a bigger target for intellectual property rights owners. We're not the only major website to have had to work hard on removing unfree images which are not our copyright. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil, I don't recognise the distinction you draw. We are all content editors. People edit different types of content, for different reasons. Some people improve the encyclopaedia by reverting vandalism, some by writing featured articles, some by filling in obscure corners of academic topics, some by protecting the project against abusers like User:JB196. We're all here for the same reason, we are all on the same rate of pay. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you are right, and any type of contributor could not survive without the other's support. But supposing you were indef blocked, and you kicked and screamed in defense, as you have seen others do in the same sutuation, and your arguments were deflected to specific obvious wrongs, and were met with comments like "Getting mad over a block just proves the block was correct in the first place", or "Just be glad you were only blocked for 48 hours", youd would not be too very pleased, right. Jeez, and sorry and eh, I feel at this stage like I should buy you a pint or something. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Well, we have ArbCom, and blocks can be appealed there by proxy or by email. This is an issue that I have sometimes seen with people one one or other pole of a highly polarised dispute, do you have an example of an unjustly banned user who has suffered this? Guy (Help!) 21:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The specifics are not the point. I said earlire I was going to cool off, and thats just what I'm trying to do. But ugly comments are being fired on the AN/I thread. Look at my last outburst on a users talk. Fairly fucking depressing to have to put up with shallow comments like that. Anyway, merry christmas. Ceoil (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Road cycling tips

Do you include more than winter cycling tips? Specifically, you should include information on training or general purpose tips, since the ones that you provide can be generalized for all cyclists. Some that I go by --

1. Rack packs should be weighted as even as possible; front packs are often preferred to rear due to distribution of weight. For those that carry it on the back, messenger bags are preferred due to stability and distribution of weight while cycling. (That I learned over time...)
2. Egg beaters are often not preferred over other clip systems. (I think this may be more personal choice than anything.)
3. Don't exercise / train every day. While training, do a mixture of sprints and casual riding in a low gear where you can free spin in five minute intervals so that you don't tire easily. Train for one hour a day.
4. Train to your favourite television show if indoors.
5. Supplement your diet with calcium (double the intake) to prevent osteoporosis in the hips many years later. Add in magnesium and vitamin D.

If I can think of anymore, I'll add some if that's okay. What do you cycle with? Have a great Christmas season! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of WP:SPOILER

Could you please unprotect WP:SPOILER? You said "Protected Misplaced Pages:Spoiler: Exactly the same stupid edit war that got it protected before, unfortunately." When you said "Exactly the same stupid edit war that got it protected before", were you referring to the reason the page got protected on December 8, 2007 at 22:07 by Penwhale? The protection policy says "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." I believe you are involved as a party to the dispute, having deleted the {{spoiler}} template which led to WP:SPOILER being rewritten without prior discussion on the talk page. I see no reason why WP:SPOILER should be protected for 4 weeks. Could you please reconsider your edit? Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• and.I believe that if it is unprotected you will continue the same stupidv edit war that got it protected last time. I reinstated an expired protection simply because as soon as it expired you started again; it should be obvious to you by now that there is no consensus for reinserting spoiler tags, the time has come to walk away and leave it be. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Am I not allowed to edit that guideline? I will walk away and leave it be if the editors who are taking ownership of that guideline walk away as well. --Pixelface (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• When there are a lot of them, and only one person pushing for the alternative, that is not WP:OWN. It's time to let is lie. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Moros Eros

I noticed you nominated Moros Eros for deletion. Just as a general observation, it says quite clearly on WP:DEL that "If the article can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

If you think an article doesn't come up to scratch, it's only fair to inform the writer of your opinions and give them a chance to fix the problems before you nominate the article for deletion.

Sardaka (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unless being "very, very new" is now an assertion of notability, the january deletion was a perfectly valid WP:CSD#A7. I sent it to afd because it lacked sources; several people in the debate demonstrated a common misconception, that being on a label means you get an article. Wrong. What is needed is non-trivial independent sources. Andrew lenahan's comments in the debate are worth reading. This is a very young band, and most of what is out there is puff. In my view, articles on new bands of minimal importance are best improved by deleting them. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Offline

Due to an ADSL outage I am offline until 28 Dec at the earliest, occasional connection via 3G or BlackBerry. Please keep comments very brief due to low bandwidth on these connections. My mail server is also affected, email will not be delivered. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

This gentleman, and I use that term lightly, has gone crazy on several articles and valued contributors. I think he's pissed about a recent block or something. Can someone deal with him? OrangeMarlin 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please disengage and send me email, I'm trying to get him engaged by email as well. I hope to be able to find out if there is a back story or underlying issue that I can help with. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is. I reverted a couple of his edits at Chronic fatigue syndrome. But he's battling everyone there. Then he's proceeded to stalk me to several other articles, most of which he has never edited before. But he didn't begin his attacks on me until I put up a fuss on his comments to User:Filll. Look, I think this guy needs to be removed from the project. Otherwise, I am going to continuing editing the articles that are interesting to me. I actually could care less what crap he gives me, it's his attacks on other editors that concern me. You might want to check with some other valued editors like JdW about Guido's propensity for causing a shit-storm. OrangeMarlin 19:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I really appreciate this comment of yours. I tried to be nice (well, sort of nice) when I first came here. But the crap that goes for an article around here at times can be difficult to take. And I actually have given up on the POV-warriors. Do you know that nearly everyone I suspected of being a sock, was proven to be one (many times by you yourself)? I'm tired of it. But we just can't let the bad guys win. OrangeMarlin 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• The underlying issue is the same as with JFW. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I know of no issue with JFW. He is a knowledgeable, fair and well-informed editor. Who has an issue with him? Guy (Help!) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Check the history of Myalgic encephalomyelitis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, he redirected a POV fork back to the right article. I must remember to ban him forever. Or maybe give him a cookie or something. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Related WQA: WP:WQA#User:Filll (II) and WP:WQA#User:Orangemarlin Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for indicating that you have the same pov as JFW and Orangemarlin, which disqualifies you as an arbiter here (as though we didn't know that already). Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Looks awfully like the problem is Guido, doesn't it? Guy (Help!) 23:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Depends on your goals. If you desire to execute users that don't agree with you, then I am the problem. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Your feigned obtuseness with regard to that remark is becoming less and less entertaining. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was about to say that, only less succinctly. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is yet again an assumption of bad faith. We are done here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash

SPD V (talk · contribs) - Heads up. -Jéské 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance - protected re-redirect for Gurg needed

Need to have the Protected Redirect for Gurg either unprotected, or change the redirect to Magical_creatures_(Harry_Potter)#Giants. It currently redirects to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, but there is no description there of Gurg. See the OOtP talk page and Talk:Gurg for info. Thanks. --T-dot ( /contribs ) 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping