Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 11 December 2008

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

incorrect deletion of gigi d'agostino's album

suono libero. it was released in 2008. i don't know how you can disregard this fact. here is a track listing: thanks. 156.56.194.201 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No such article. Tell me more and I'll try to help you. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Locution, locution, locution

Have you reached any decisions about what to recite with those jucyfruits in your mouth? I should think Tennyson. ;) --Fullobeans (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean jujyfruits. I'm phwinking abop ip. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

reverting my talk page

A user has reverted material that I deleted from my talk page . Since I explained my reason -- it belongs on the article talk page -- this revert of another user's talk page seems beyond obnoxious. The possibility of getting into an edit war on my own talk page seems absurd. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You can mostly delete what you like from your own talk page. Lots of editors don't like it when some editors do that, but you can do it (also given what you've said about your comfort level with computers I won't nudge you to try archiving instead). You were also wise in coming to an admin about it instead of going back and forth, although no admin would ever block you for 3rr over deleting comments from your own talk page. I've left a note for the editor who likely didn't know. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

A couple of days ago I took a look at what is involved with archiving some of the discussion on my talk page, but could not understand the process and decided not to even try.

As far as Oren.tal's edits on my talk page, the content is not a problem to me, I just wanted him to take it to the Ha'aretz talk page where I think it really belongs. For whatever reasons he did not want to do that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually dislike making this sort of accusation, but I doubt this is really a new user Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

He's not new. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I am really getting tired of reverts with accusations like this and unspecified and false accusations like this . Why should I have to put up with accusations of vandalism from an editor who knows better? Why should I have to come to an administrator every time I want to make an edit? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like you need to discuss your edits more, on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Having had a bit more time to look at this, I left a message RolandR's talk page noting that your edits weren't vandalism and asking that he use edit summaries and talk page comments to discuss why he might not agree with your edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gwen, but I disagree with you. The reason that I considered the edit in question to be vandalism, and not simply an editorial dispute, was that, having edit-warred for a while on the article, and denied the subject's notability, Malcolm then, without discussion or warning, completely removed the passage outlining the contribution for which the subject is most notable. As I noted in my reversion, if he thought that the passage was poorly sourced, Malcolm could, and should, have placed a "citation needed" or "fact" tag rather than removing the passage. And, without that passage, it becomes far harder to establish the subject's notability, as Malcolm is demanding.

Malcolm is not a new or inexperienced editor, and he is aware of the existence and use of such tags. Under the circumstances, it seemed (and still seems) to me that removing, rather than tagging, this key passage in an article which he had already tagged for notability concerns was not an innocent editorial decision, but an attempt to prejudice discussion of the subject's notability. RolandR (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no hint that Malcom's edits have been in anything but good faith and any good faith edit is not vandalism. Yes, if there are policy, guideline or other worries with his edits, please feel free to discuss them on the article talk page but please keep in mind, he has not vandalized the article and saying he has done does nothing but stir up more disagreement. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I only have a few minutes now, but I want to say that I did not deny notability. The article does not establish notability. I put the notability template on the article hoping that sources for notability would be provided. I do not think that an extraordinary request. There was also a paragraph I removed. It was unsourced and made extraordinary claims about Sands views. Verifiable secondary sources should be supplied. I did search, but could not find support. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability tags on a BLP can be tricky, Malcolm, when they're put up by someone whose PoV seems to disagree with the outlook of that BLP's subject. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are assuming my POV is something other than it is. I do not like, nor support, everything done by the Israeli government. Far from it. Also, Sand's position is not made clear by the content of the article, and what little I have found in a web search suggests his views may be close to mine. Or maybe not. The article supplies little information, and I have not found much so far. In any case, as I have said previously, I am opposed to anyone distorting sources to support a personal POV, and anyone includes me. The tag was intended to spur improvement of the article. Look and see if I have done harm to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm only talking about methods of settling disagreements: Notability tags will almost always be taken as a first step towards deleting the article, which others may think means "If I can't have my way, I want the whole thing deleted!" It doesn't matter what you meant by it, the pith is, it would most likely be seen that way. I'm not telling you how to edit the article, only trying to help you understand why the editor came back at you so strongly, which you could have skirted while still bringing up your worries about the content. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not too shy to initiate an AfD. My assumption is that the guy is notable, but the article does not establish that. All RolandR, or any other editor, needs to do to solve the problem is to add sourced information. RolandR's claiming that I removed the proof of notability is not correct, because what I removed was unsourced. Unsourced statements does not establish notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What's your main worry about the article? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that many articles are having material added in a way that unnecessarily emphasises the Israel/Palestine conflict, or that frequently information is added in a way to strengthen the position (arguing points) of one side. The Hummus article debacle is an outstanding example, but is one of many. (The thread I introduced on the Village Pump was concerned with what goes wrong when such disputes start to dominate articles, although I may not have done a very good job of explaining.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We agree there, Malcolm, spot on, whatever PoV is being flung. As you may be learning, there is no easy way to fix this, for sundry reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about Lesbian Sex Practices, HIV section

Is there a reason that information on safer sex practices should not be included on the Lesbian Sexual Practices page? I included this information in the HIV section I posted because I feel it is rather important.Lesadv (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and it's still there. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

administrator list

where can I get a list of administrators?Oren.tal (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:List_of_administrators. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

I'm thinking this block does have its point, content issue aside. I would suggest you take an active role in mediation on the page which instigated the conflict as I have concerns towards some mainstream content that seems to be rejected for various concerns that I can't seem to follow. This might be a good chance to help nudge editors to discuss issues properly and resolve the issue. Jaakobou 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the editor owing to behaviour: Edit warring, pointy edits and incivility. As for the content, I think to begin with, more input is needed and RfCs would be helpful on each of these articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing on Joe the Plumber

One editor has sought to introduce material (all from mid-October) into the article which was removed weeks ago -- including "surmise" about Joe being an "illegal plumber" etc. I deleted the contentious material, and was charged by him with "vandalism" (this is BLP, where content disputes should be handled conservatively). His reaction was to form a RfC and then to solicit more than a dozen of his friends to enter in (including doing reverts) - which I think might run afoul of the spirit of WP:CANVASS. where he avoids notifying any of the other editors on the article. I am probably too angry at the gameplaying I have seen (one editor already wrote on another page about me "There are at least a dozen editors that should know about a recent Administrative notice board request. Manic Brit, Anarchangel,Factchecker, LLLL, victorc, just to name a few. The problem is to invite fellow Witnesses for the Prosecution without seeming to be vindictive....or wait to play a better hand. Just thought Id drop you a line to say hello. Feel free to delete. This particular hand seems weak." Among the milder "collusion" posts <g>. In any case, thanks for allowing a minor vent. If this indeed rises to a level where admins should be formally told, tell me. I just do not like all my good faith edits labelled "vandalism." Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be talking about this edit. No worries, that's no rv of vandalism :) As for the canvassing, yes, it's a bit on the edge. So far as illegal plumber goes, it's a BLP so that phrase should very likely be in quotes, very reliably sourced and attributed. Moreover, other PoVs about that can be likewise quoted, reliably sourced and attributed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen, actually the term "illegal plumber" is Collect's characterization of the content. It's not used in the section at all. Also, I mainly canvassed editors who were active around the topic. Once I decided to broader, I kept it pretty neutral. It's been exhausting trying to work on that article if you don't mind my saying it.Mattnad (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7728736