Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:01, 7 February 2008

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush 2

I think it should be unprotected, to see if any IPs will make constructive edits, e.g. 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Some IP editors just don't want to register, and we shouldn't force them to if they want to edit George W. Bush.

I know it gets hit by a lot of drive-by IPs, but it would be fair to unprotect it every so often.

Sorry for changing the template. Thanks, --Solumeiras 13:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the George W. Bush protection log, you'll see it has been protected and unprotected over 200 times. Every time somebody gets the idea of allowing IP editors, the vandalism increases to significant levels. Even while semi-protected, the page is vandalized numerous times each day. It will not likely be unprotected until well after he leaves office. - auburnpilot talk 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I know, I've seen that log. Mind you, Tony Blair's out of office, so it could be safe to unprotect his article?? However, Margaret Thatcher does seem to be a common target for schoolkids and pranksters, so it could be s-protected for a bit.
• It is a popular page, and I know it's had a bad history, it's a shame that IPs behave like naughty schoolkids. I assume you work on the article a fair bit?? Anyway, I'll try and see what I can do with regards to content on that article rather than vandalism reversion. Maybe have a Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/George W. Bush to give the IPs/schoolkids somewhere to play?? Thanks, --Solumeiras 14:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair was actually unprotected 10 days ago, and it still appears to be receiving quite a bit of IP vandalism; it remains move protected (why, I don't know). I think any subject that is frequently covered in school will always be a target for vandals, and is likely why articles such as Margaret Thatcher and Thomas Jefferson receive such high levels of vandalism. Although creating a sandbox specifically for targeting the Bush article might make a few kids happy, I think it would cause too much of a WP:BLP issue to do so. The standard sandbox is all we need. - auburnpilot talk 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Take a look. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#User:AuburnPilot. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented there. - auburnpilot talk 06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed Gary Smith's political column from Theistic rationalism. I wrote a very, very brief summary of why all four sources are unreliable. If you could read it on the talk page and respond, I would appreciate it.

Also, since I assume you have read Gary Thiessen's book on theology, if you could please let me know what the rest of the text says, I would appreciate it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page, but I cannot provide you with text from a copyrighted book. - auburnpilot talk 02:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dick Cheney

Hello. I thought you might be interested to know that Dick Cheney is now a GA thanks to myself and fellow editor User:HopsonRoad. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

featured article Louis Slotin

This article appeared to be scheduled as the featured article for Jan 23, but now it isn't. How could I follow what went on with this: how it was scheduled then removed?

I'm posting to you because you are recorded as protecting the page. Surprising to me, I was still able to edit it.

I've spoken the article, and hope that it will be featured on jan 23 or thereabouts.

Thanks, Leotohill (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 schedules what featured articles will appear on the main page and I'm not sure why he changed the article scheduled for tomorrow. As far as I know, there isn't a process and Raul simply chooses the articles at random from a list of featured articles. WP:FA has a page where you can request that a certain article appear on the main page on a certain date, but I don't have that link. - auburnpilot talk 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 08:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I just saw your protection of tomorrow-for me it's today-'s FA. Just wondering if you've read Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection. Yonatan 03:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read it, have you? ;-) All articles that appear on the main page are move protected to avoid the pain that is caused when a move-vandal attacks an article, moving the page history to several dozen different locations. Once an article is scheduled for the main page, it's safe to assume the title will not need to be changed. - auburnpilot talk 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, my bad, it's late here so I didn't notice that you were only protecting it as "move=sysop". Yonatan 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I've done the same thing many times. - auburnpilot talk 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Alabama Cooperative Extension System page

Auburn Pilot, can you help me, ACES-wikiman? I'm still a novice with Misplaced Pages. Anyway, I've developed the Misplaced Pages article for the Alabama Cooperative Extension System --- literally hours of time spent on it, though I must confess that I'm an employee of the organizaton. Another wiki editor wrote recently to claim that some of the material sounded nonneutral. I promptly complied, removing all of the material he/she deemed problematic. However, the individual then proceeded to place an editing tag at the top of the page, stressing that the page needed additional editing and instructing me that I needed to contact the Misplaced Pages editing board. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that,and I really would like to get the tag removed asap. As I've said, I think I've built the article into a fairly extensive source -- one of the top 25 largest articles among the Alabama-related Wiki articles. I've also got two of our professional editors on it, checking for any sorts of grammatical, spelling or syntactical lapses. If you can alert the Board that I need the piece edited, I would be deeply appreciative. Otherwise, please consider providing me with instructions about how. As I mentioned to the individual who placed the tag, I'm not shooting for a featured page or anything, just an article that is considered factual and helpful to readers. Oh, and sorry in advance if I've violated any Misplaced Pages etiquette in writing. I've just looked to you as a respected source since I got involved in this several months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.46.144 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Collectonian (talk · contribs) has already asked for input from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Companies. I'll also leave a note on the talk page for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alabama, a similar project that aims to improve the coverage of Alabama-related articles. The tag placed at the top of the article, {{copyedit}}, merely adds the article to Category:Misplaced Pages articles needing copy edit from January 2008 so that other editors will know that it needs a good copy edit. This isn't a bad thing, as it will actually benefit the article; the tag will be removed once the article is copy edited. As far as your conflict of interest, our policies do not prohibit you from editing the article because you are an employee of Alabama Cooperative Extension System. It is strongly discouraged, however. Just be sure to read through WP:COI and keep your edits neutral. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'm stilly very new to this stuff. User:ACES-wikiman —Preceding comment was added at 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. I'm not much of a copy editor, so hopefully somebody will respond on one of the WikiProject pages. - auburnpilot talk 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates

I forgot that was still in there. Google Earth no longer needs the coordinates with "display=title". They started picking up the infobox coordinates in December. See User talk:Zyxw/Archive 3#Google earth again. Neither Cambridge Bay Aiport or Cambridge Bay Water Aerodrome ever had the "display=title" and those plus several others show up in Google Earth. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. That'll end some of the confusion as to where the coordinates should go. - auburnpilot talk 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway disappearance

I moved the page in accordance with WP:BLP as noted in the edit summary. I have alerted the BLPN board. You can't override WP:BLP this way; you will need a consensus to keep the article at Natalee Holloway, not the other way around. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Do not move the page again. Try the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 03:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change my opinion, this is not the way to do it. How about some arguments? You are not up against me, you know. It's policy. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to comment on the article talk page? I will comment there all you like, but my talk page is no more an appropriate place for a move discussion than the BLP noticeboard. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Through the Looking Glass (Lost) (2nd nomination)

Looks like someone reopened this again. Better take a look--Lenticel 05:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your closure was restored so everything is fine. The first closure was reverted by a sockpuppet called User:Makeb2. Sorry for bothering you.--Lenticel 12:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

bastardizing my comments

I really do not appreciate that. Juran van der Sloot has every appearance of being a scumbag. His actions before and after the disappearance bear that out. How is that contentious to point that out? I will not revery any more. Thank you.--24.250.59.250 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling somebody a scumbag doesn't help in any way, and we are not going to add it to the article. See WP:BLP for our policy regarding living people, which states "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". It's policy. - auburnpilot talk 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit-war over the gripmonkey blog. I leave it to your capable administrative hands.Kww (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that blog, which is why I didn't reinclude it, but I'll take a look. - auburnpilot talk 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice Photo Vandalism

I noticed your comments in response to my vandalism report with respect to the photo in the Condoleezza Rice article. While the problem in that article has been fixed, a very similar problem in the United States Secretary of State article has not been fixed. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured out how to fix the problem. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In response

Joran's initial suspected involvement in Natalee Holloway's case in addition to involvement on both Dutch and US television programs, involving multiple interviews, certainly merits an article as beyond one instance. In addition, by applying your logic, Ron Goldman should also be undeserving of an article. In fact, Holloway and Goldman both a murder victims have not been involved in another incident aside from their unfortunate demise, so applying you logic further would strip Misplaced Pages of further notable articles beyond Joran's. Best not to go there. Netkinetic 05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be a complete misunderstanding of policy. The article is not a biography, and is solely about the case subject. The case is notable, as determined by two deletion discussions, due to the media attention/circus and the three year investigation. Again, Joran has zero notability outside of this case, and does not earn a biography because of interviews related to the case. Everything in the Joran article is covered in the case article, making it redundant. If you wish to determine whether or not consensus has changed, a discussion on Talk:Natalee Holloway would be more appropriate than simply removing the redirect. - auburnpilot talk 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So back to the Ron Goldman article...that merits deletion in a subsequent manner? I'm failing to see the distinction beyond the fact that Goldman is an American, while Joran is a Dutch citizen. It is my understanding Misplaced Pages is international in scope?Netkinetic 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with nationality. Again, a discussion is the way to go. - auburnpilot talk 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

Hi there. The edit history says you protected Ronald Reagan, yet IPs are still ablt to edit, all of whom have vandalised the page. What gives? Here is just some of what happened when Nancy Reagan was up on the main page, and without semi-protection her husband's article is going to get mutilated. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Happyme22. I merely move protected the article, as is done with all FAs before they appear on the main page as Today's Featured article. Per WP:NOPRO, the featured article isn't semi-protected preemptively, so IP editors will still be able to edit the page. - auburnpilot talk 23:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Terra's Night Watch

Thanks for not erasing Night Watch, i was thinking of what to do with it and have decided to restore it, again thanks. Terra 18:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perception

Auburn, it might be best for WP if admins showed a bit more restraint in conflicts regarding other admins. True, you didn't block Pax, which does show restraint, but I'm not so sure the warning was justified (I could be wrong, of course). Civility is a subjective matter, and what offends one might not offend another. OK, that's my two cents, back to the regularly scheduled program. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 21:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pax Arcane (talk · contribs) isn't an admin, but it wouldn't matter if he was. His comments were unacceptable, and I would have left the same message for any user (admin or not). - auburnpilot talk 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Emergency: Please check Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR History

Thanks for the unblock. It was the result of blatant vandalism.

Please check G2bambino edits at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The History page shows extensive alterations to posted complaints and decisions posted by myself (see history page). G2bambino has altered the page to make it appear that my posts were spurious, resulting in User:Spartaz blocking me (in good faith) for harassment. G2bambino then reverted to the old postings. This is a blatant case of vandalism. Please compare following with current page:

• ]Stifle last post before alteration including initial complaints and decisions see link
• Final edit by G2bambino showing altered posts see link

G2bambino deliberately altered my posts to the page with intent to misrepresent them. --soulscanner (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)