Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:44, 28 March 2008

Archives Note: The links below are permanent links to the correct versions of the archived talk pages. Any "newer" versions of these pages may have been compromised.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14

My vandalism

Sorry, I misread the page history. It appears the vandalism was actually removed while I was reading the article. - Calmypal (T) 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the warning, and apologize for the inconvenience. John254 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

HELP

I have tried to add information about the digital phase converter to the three phase power site, but am continually being removed by Wtshymanski. Can you help? I would appreciate any suggestions, etc. Thanks. Soothsayer2 (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

Template:The GO-PCHS-NJROTC Antivandal Barnstar GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. John254 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

shaftesbury page (again)

Sorry to bother you again with this John but it seems the people that were spamming for their link to a commercial site on shaftesbury are back again and are ignoring that we had this whole editor discussion a while back about their site selling advertising space and the link there being to one of a community non-profit site. They keep just adding the link without discussion while talking about all the editors agreeing with them when no such event has ever taken place or anything close. Would you mind terribly revisiting the page shaftesbury and just showing them there are editors about that will stand up for pages not being used as advertising tools. Thanks for your time --Curuxz (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

John McCain lobbyist controversy

I closed this DRV, please discuss the redirecting/non-redirecting of the article on its talk page. Redirects are not the same as deletions, and they are in no way equivalent because simple redirecting is done editorially without a deletion debate, and the history is preserved - anyone can revert a redirect. No deletion debates on this article reached a "redirect" consensus, so this is not in DRV's scope. --Coredesat 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some other administrators disagree with that contention, and assert that the redirection was effectively a deletion of the entire article Perhaps it might have been better to let the discussion continue, and close it on the basis of the consensus expressed therein. John254 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not deletion at all because the history is preserved, and I'm not sure why they think it is. DGG is arguing a change in policy, and DRV is not the right environment for that - until such change is made, redirects are not deletions and cannot be considered deletions. As for JoshuaZ, the redirection wasn't done as a result of a debate. Anyone can revert it and discuss it on the talk page, there's no need for a DRV at all. Last I checked, we didn't use DRV to settle content disputes, which is what this is. --Coredesat 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the preservation of the page history is factor which weighs in favor of the finding that redirection does not amount to the deletion of articles, as does the fact that this particular redirection was not implemented with administrative tools, by protecting the redirect. These factors, however, are not dispositive, since other considerations cause redirection of an article to partake of the character of a deletion:

(1) Redirection removes the article from existence for most purposes, insofar as most readers won't follow the backlink after being redirected, and view the original article in the page history. Furthermore, the article cannot be edited without reversing the redirect.

(2) Redirection is a uniquely binary decision, which sharply distinguishes it from most content disputes: the article is either redirected or it isn't, no compromise or intermediate position is possible. In an ordinary article content dispute, it is usually possible to resolve the disagreement by producing a compromise version of the article somewhere in between competing versions.

I contend that these two factors, taken together, render the redirection of an article a deletion in effect and character, even if conducted without the use of administrative tools. I further note that the fact that redirections are sometimes implemented administratively as a result of AFD discussions, weighs in favor of considering the reversal of redirects (even those not implemented via AFD) within the scope of DRV. Finally, since deletion review discussions are closed administratively, and not subject to unilateral reversal by any editor, DRV has a fairly good track record of implementing decisions which are not subject to substantial further conflict. Effective deletion of articles through redirection, however, has often resulted in massive edit warring over a large number of articles -- see, for example, the situation described in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 -- simply because controversial talk page discussions often have no objectively ascertainable consensus, which results in a situation in which each side in a content dispute can claim that consensus favors them. As described above, this situation would ordinarily be resolved through compromise, but, because redirection is binary, such compromise is impossible. John254 01:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Elk Mountain Ski Area

As the administrator who handled the AfD on this article, I wanted to bring a blatant COPYVIO in the History section of Elk Mountain Ski Area to your attention. I have placed the {{copyvio}} template in article. -Gr0ff (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section of the article which was comprised entirely of a copyright violation. John254 03:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

js in category

Hey, your javascript at User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js shows up in Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics because it contains some template text ({{rescue}}) that is mistakenly expanded by mediawiki. Can you fix that? I actually did the same thing in one of my scripts, which I fixed by splitting the string up into something like '{{' + 'rescue}}'. (Probably the other templates or category links, too...) — brighterorange (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have adjusted User:John254/AFD closure/monobook.js to remove it from Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics. John254 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have split the strings used to represent AFD templates, and an instance of Category:Ended featured picture nominations. These modifications should (hopefully) remove the script from all deletion and featured pictures related categories. John254 03:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Blue Man Group CDs

Hey, saw that you closed this AfD. I agree with your call, but for consistency's sake, I moved the article to Blue Man Group discography. Hope you don't mind. :) GlassCobra 10:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, John, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking an IP?

Hello John, I've been fighting a consistent vandal on the page for Diplomatic Academy of Vienna. This vandal operates under IP 212.16.62.98. I went to his/her talk page and noted you had already issued a warning about bad behaviour. My question: do you have, or know someone who has, the authority to block this person? Not a big deal but it might put a stop to me annoying having to revert the article every day. Thanks, Dmhaglund (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD script

Nicely done on the script! I was wondering, could you change it a little, so it also asks a reason for the keep? That would be great. Thanks! BTW, the script blanked the article instead of removing the notice. Also, how do you make it work for FPC, TFD etc.? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the page-blanking bug, and added a "keep (reason)" tab which will prompt the user for a statement before closing the AFD discussion. Use of the "keep" tab will continue to produce the usual behavior of closing the discussion without a statement. Note that it may be necessary to update your version of the script by viewing User:Milk's Favorite Cookie/monobook.js and pressing control + F5. John254 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! How do you get it to work on FPC, TFD etc? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The script can currently handle all types of FPC closures except the promotion of new images. A discussion such as Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/lamp which will not result in a promotion can be closed by pressing the "decline fp" tab that will appear when viewing the discussion page. To close a nomination for delisting such as Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nodding Pincushion Protea Flower Bud, the "retain fp" or "delist fp" tabs can be selected, as appropriate. Note, however, that if an image is delisted, any transclusions of the image on Misplaced Pages:Featured pictures or subpages thereof must be removed manually. Use of the script to close TFD discussions would likely require extensive modification, as TFD does not have individual discussion pages, but instead uses a single page for all nominations which were initiated on a given date. The script would need to be modified to prompt the user for the name of the template whose discussion was been closed, then parse the discussion page to determine the boundaries of the relevant entry. John254 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For making a very useful script for closing AFD's, FPC's etc, I - Milk's Favorite Cookie hereby award you this barnstar. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. John254 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You deserved it! BTW, when using the "Keep (reason)" script, while closing an AFD, when it leads you to the articles talk page, it will not save automatically. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. John254 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Live at the Crystal Palace AfD

I was wondering if you'd reconsider your closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Live at the Crystal Palace. None of the "keep" !votes addressed the fact that only 1 of the references given in the article even mentioned the album; and that only confirmed that, at least in 2006, they were planning on releasing an album with that title; two years later and it's still not out. One minor reference doesn't indicate notability, and only barely covers WP:V. Your thoughts? (You can respond here.) Thanks —Hello, Control 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless an article contains certain severe policy violations, such as copyright violations or unsourced controversial information concerning living persons, deletion discussions are generally closed on the basis of consensus. While some administrators have been known to delete articles if they find the arguments for deletion to be compelling, even where a significant majority of participants in an AFD discussion have supported retention, consensus for the deletion of an article requires, at a bare minimum, that at least some users beside the nominator support deletion. As there was significant support for the retention of the article, no users besides yourself supporting deletion, and no severe policy violations asserted, I closed the discussion as keep. Naturally, if you disagree with this outcome, you are welcome to raise the issue at deletion review. John254 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. I know some admins do things differently than others and since it was closed without any elaboration, I figured I'd ask. I may chuck it in DRV; if I do, I'll drop you a line. Peace —Hello, Control 01:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Script

Do you mind if I modify your script a little (as in move it to my userspace, credit to you). I want to make some additional tabs (results are merge;no consensus etc.) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. John254 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, could you create a new tab with a "no consensus" closing? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I could -- however, note that per Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Thus, AFD discussions with "no consensus" outcomes are not suitable for non-administrative closure. If an administrator wants this feature implemented, please let me know. John254 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA

If you accept, I will create the page. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been involved in a bit too much recent controversy to pass an RFA at this time, and it's still somewhat too soon after my last RFA. Maybe next year? John254 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think next year, is a long wait. I suppose we can wait until May. Is that good for you? You sure look like you would make a great admin! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on my past experience with an RFA in January, May would probably be too soon. Thanks anyway. John254 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--Riccardo.tenaglia (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks John, I will go away and rewrite the article from a business tool perspective on cardscan business card reading tools for office automation. Cheers Riccardo

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kindness in cleaning up my user page so quickly after the vandal hit it. Much appreciated . . . Alanraywiki (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Twaz

I can't really argue about the first two edits, but I certainly can about his post on my userpage. So, Twaz forgot to click User Talk, and posted his warning on my userpage. So what? I don't think that I should have to remind you that Misplaced Pages doesn't block because of trivial mistakes like that. Please assume good faith before slapping on warnings. Cheers, Glacier Wolf 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

and indicate that Twaz has recently restored vandalism to articles using popups, at a rate far greater than what would be expected due to simple mistakes in RC patrol. Twaz also recently issued a vandalism warning to a user who actually removed vandalism from Pythagoras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and placed two warnings on userpages -- warnings are only placed on talk pages, a custom with which Twaz is clearly familiar, as indicated by his issuance of a warning on my talk page. If Twaz isn't engaged in outright vandalism, he is at least being sufficiently reckless as to warrant a block for disruption if he continues. John254 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember to try not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. IN RE: your recent posts on my user page. Pointing it out would have been sufficient. No clue how I changed poopane to propane, must have double reverted. About the rest, a Bureaucrats guess is as good as mine. Going to go to sleep, researching for like 30 hours. --InvisibleDiplomat₆₆ 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So, why didn't you warn the original vandal to Andy Macdonald? I mean, you know I'm just zapped from being online too much. But, this guy actually inserted non-referenced material. In fact, why haven't you warned any of the original vandals I thought I was going behind and reverting? I mean, I'm in no capacity without sleep to take on an advisory role as an editor, but you sure could if you were truly interested in the encylopedic quality of Misplaced Pages. Which, through your zeal of my activity demonstrates that you are. For which I applaud you. I'm just coming to you to resolve this directly. --InvisibleDiplomat₆₆ 03:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Six restorations of vandalism ( ), a restoration of hoax content (), and the issuance of a vandalism warning to a user who actually removed vandalism, in the space of less than 50 edits, indicates that you are making inappropriate edits at a rate vastly exceeding what would be expected due to simple mistakes. If a user is employing an RC patrol tool to restore vandalism at a sufficiently high rate, one may justifiably conclude that the user is either actually engaged in vandalism, or at least editing in an unacceptably negligent manner, either of which will result in such a user's account being blocked if they continue. John254 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That was all freehand homie, using popups. A lot of them were due to things like double reverts, or in your case, accidentally reverting Andy Macdonald. But good job watching the page, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten Huggle at the behest of Glacier. --InvisibleDiplomat₆₆ 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

IP: 76.235.87.57

I was going to say something, but you did that. I reverted the petty vandalism by that IP address on JAPW Heavyweight Championship. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Defamatory" edits

How is mentioning the known fact that this person left Lyndon LaRouche's movement defamatory? It can be referenced to other works as well. The subject has been up-front about his reasons for leaving the movement... I'm not sure where you're coming with this.

Also, it is highly uncivil to leave warning symbols on established users' talk pages. Don't do it again. I know my way around Misplaced Pages fine without your harassment.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As Lyndon LaRouche is a highly controversial political figure, any claim that a living person is associated with Lyndon LaRouche is necessarily controversial as well. That the claim might "be referenced to other works as well" is irrelevant -- per Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, any controversial material concerning living persons which is inadequately referenced now may be removed from Misplaced Pages articles until acceptable sourcing is provided. The warning indicates that your account will be blocked if you continue to restore this information -- I strongly suggest that you heed it. John254 19:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The change of BLP from "defamatory", "potentially defamatory", or "negative" to "controversial" or "contentious" is, itself, highly controversial. WIthout that, there's no remaining support of your edits in BLP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with that assessment, and would suggest that the current wording of Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material accurately reflects consensus. I will raise this issue further at WP:AN. John254 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on the Eric Lerner talk page. You were able to see and communicate in Misplaced Pages-speak what I was trying to convey in English. ABlake (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalking!

Kindly desist from stalking my edits and trying to cause trouble. It won't work, so go and find something more constructive to do with your time. Such edits as this may make you appear foolish. Giano (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Legitimate requests for the enforcement of decisions by the Arbitration Committee do not constitute "stalking". John254 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You have begun to interest me, stalking is a game that two can play...I'm wondering why the Arbcom accepted a case from you with such speedy, almost suspicious, alacrity - if I were one of those Arbs I would now be very worried, because your edits have started to interest me too, first one on Masturbation - now there's a sunject and a half. As I said I am now very interested indeed.You see John I am still far from happy about the IRC case, and I will get to the bottom of it, if not here then elsewhere. Giano (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. John254 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, no luck required. Giano (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

John, whilst I might have issues with the wisdom of the arbcom remedy on Giano, the intent was clear. The intent was that they wanted Giano to be free to edit, but the high drama to stop. Whether that will work, I don't know. The danger is always that someone baits him with an intent to stoke said drama. So, if the intention is "no drama" and the blunt tool is blocking, am am ready to block. But I am ready to block whoever is seeking to cause a drama. Get it? So put down the costume and step away from the building, please.--Doc 13:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking users for filing legitimate requests for the enforcement of decisions by the Arbitration Committee would set an extremely bad precedent, and would likely have a significant chilling effect on future requests. I certainly hope that you don't intend to place such a block. John254 23:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you've got the message, I won't have to, will I?--Doc 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured of one thing Doc, when (not if) I am proved correct in my assunmptions there will be drama on a scale you have only ever dreamed about. People would do well to put their houses in order now - if they know the truth. John has stoked a fire, that, now, I will put out when I am good and ready. Giano (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

With comments like this, I think it's fairly clear who is trying to cause drama. John254 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me give you some advice: Never start something unless you know the ending. Giano (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)