Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:25, 17 December 2008

Question

Hi Coren, question for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin 07:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ARCA

Please note that Noah Charney, Director of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art, has authorized his website content to be used on wikipedia for the advancement of knowledge into art crimes and theft. Please feel free to contact Director Charney at director.arca@gmail.com with any questions you might have. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best Regards, Jason L. Sparks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlsparks4 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Misplaced Pages. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren  13:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jive Aces

Cirt tells me you were responsible for deleting the Jive Aces entry recently. I understand the reason given was lack of referenced articles implying insufficient notability. I have subsequently found the following, and therefore request that the entry be reinstated. Many thanks:

- http://www.retroradar.com/keely-smith-and-the-jive-aces/
- http://www.thisissussex.co.uk/entertainment/Jive-Aces-Royal-Victoria-Hall-Theatre-Southborough/article-500815-detail/article.html
- http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:jcfrxqujldse
- The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 (see listing for Ian Clarkson, Jive Aces frontman) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gZIjT8PgJMEC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=%22jive+aces%22+encyclopedia&source=web&ots=XyV-iKS83V&sig=XrbOFgQI8UtwJwBFts2GTdDtgDs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=13&ct=result
- a collection of past articles, none of which appear to be live any more (all archived and readable for a fee it appears) but it does at least givw the publication and date http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4518014.html
- This confirms that they were awarded the City of Derry International Music Award http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/Press%20Releases/020507-jiveaces.htm
- http://2008.montreuxjazz.com/concerts/artists_details_fr.aspx?id=751
- http://www.tbnweekly.com/editorial/local_entertainment/concerts/content_articles/120407_leconcert-02.txt
- Newcastle Evening Chronicle http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6783/is_2007_Jan_10/ai_n28397674
- On the bill of the BBC's Children In Need annual fund-raiser http://www.bbc.co.uk/cambridgeshire/content/articles/2006/11/07/cin_duxford_event_evening_feature.shtml
- On Hungarian TV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW8TwoZBaHo&feature=related
Johnalexwood (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You can simply write a new article in your userspace (like at User:Johnalexwood/The Jive Aces) and bring it to deletion review; if notability is established, then it'll be moved to mainspace. — Coren  13:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

History of the National Health Sevice

Hi. Just a note to say that I am trying to sort out the present article by creating separate article about the History of the NHS in England, Wales and Scotland. Initially I have moved most material to a new article (which appears similar for a few minutes!) but it will change. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Caveat arbiter?

I was encouraged by your somewhat bold and certainly frank comments in the context of the recently concluded election for members of the Arbitration Committee.

In my view, your observations represented a constructive step forward in a number of on-going discussions in which too much is left unsaid. They say that immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I don't know that I'm quite ready to begin to flatter you over-much -- not yet ... but I would like to move a little closer to adopting the tone and substance of some of your positions, especially in terms of what you identify as poisoning the well. --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

flaminglawyer is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Request for help with a distruptive editor

Hello Coren,

You gave me some advice a couple months ago on how to avoid 3RR when dealing with disruptive editors while I was temporarily blocked. I'm on the brink of the 3RR on the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article and do not want to violate it again, so I'm asking for your assistance because of your previous advice to me and because you're a third party. But it has more to do with just the 3RR. I've been dealing with a disruptive editor for the past few weeks who is completely unopen to compromise, revert wars, and now is !vote counting on an RFC he started only a couple days ago, amongst other things -- and I've completely lost my patience with him. I do not believe that the disruptive editor, Commodore Sloat has been exhibiting good faith for some time during this dispute (as well as other disputes on the article, but that's neither here nor there). I've been pointing this out multiple times -- admittedly snidely and with sarcasm but my patience has been thin for a while, and he regards it as personal attacks even though there's plenty of evidence. I probably should've asked for assistance sooner, but better late than never, and I'm now officially convinced that there's no appeasing csloat because he has no intention of being appeased or reaching consensus.

As I said, this is related to the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article, particularly the World opinion subsection. This was a section that I created as part of an enhancement effort after the election, but it was also part of compromise to a major content dispute related to an edit that csloat made which was ultimately reformatted, reduced, and moved to the end World Opinion section. Everyone from both sides of the argument over exclusion/inclusion of the material supported the compromise, except csloat. Shortly afterward, he aimed most of his interest at the rest of the World Opinion section, focusing on removing content related to polling data about world disinterest in the election. But this isn't a content dispute (or just a content dispute, rather), this is about disruptive behavior both in editing and discussion.

First and foremost, I believe there is simply no appeasing him. I've made numerous compromises, and he has made absolutely none. This is best illustrated by comparing my original version and my most recent version. Here's a list of the compromises I've made:

1. Added information about a statistically insignificant margin for Laos in the 2nd paragraph; a slight modification of one of his edits.
2. Changed the lede sentence for the 3rd paragraph since it was not sourced with a more neutrally worded lede sentence; per his request.
3. Removed any reference to "apathy" and replaced with "no opinion" in the 3rd paragraph; per his request.
4. Provided separate sources from the main source for China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Latin America because these poll results weren't specifically mentioned in the main source's summary; per his request (which I'll elaborate on shortly).

As for Csloat, he hasn't made any compromises. All he's done is remove content and claim that I'm drawing conclusions outside of source material and distorting data. Here's the diff of his first edit/content removal where he pastes over data displaying various countries' disinterest towards the election with a redundant quote (all the information was already in the section's lede paragraph). Here's the diff from his most recent edit/content removal, and here's all that's changed:

1. After having it pointed out that his pasted quote was redundant with the first paragraph, he simply removed the first paragraph.
2. After pointing out the hypocrisy of him calling poll data about China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Latin America "cherry picked" but condoning inclusion of data about the European Union, Africa, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea which came from the same source, he simply removed everything and replaced the entire paragraph with his original pasted quote.
3. Per a token compromise that I never asked for and don't support, he pasted a sentence about China after the quote.

CSloat came up with multiple reasons that my contribution was against policy. The accusations would come iteratively as each subsequent accusation was either disproved or addressed, and the accusations got more far-reaching each time -- to the point where his complaint had no valid basis in any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Here's how it unfolded:

1. Claimed my contribution was original research. I explained to him that this was not original research since everything in the contribution was backed by the source.
2. He then changed to claiming that my contribution was synthesis. I explained to him that this claim has no basis since synthesis requires multiple sources.
3. He claimed that the source drew a conclusion and that my edit was contrary to it. I explained that the source didn't draw a conclusion, it merely summarized poll data; I also pointed out that article specifically said that the majority of the world expressed disinterest, which is the material he was adamant about excluding.
4. He started an RFC where he claimed that since the poll summary article is titled "World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1" that citing any information that is not about this is against policy (again claiming original research). Now this is just plain ridiculous, and I flat out called it the worst and most transparent excuse that I've ever heard for exclusion of material. But since I realized that simply explaining this to him wouldn't be enough, I appeased his ridiculous claim and went and found articles that supported all of the polling statistics that he wanted excluded. I hoped that this would finally bring a close to this.

So now, he's just saying that he simply doesn't like it. His most recent post to the RFC said that there are still "multiple issues" even though he didn't bother to list any, and that I have no more valid points.

But it's more than just his overt resistance to compromise and the various reasons he's come up with for exclusion. During the dispute, when he was on the brink of violating the 3RR rule, he instead placed a totally-disputed tag on my version of the World opinion subsection multiple times; since this was obviously not true and was clearly way too severe a tag, I regarded it as vandalism and removed it each time. During his countless reverts, in the edit summaries he'd often put "per talk", claim his edit was the "consensus" when the dispute was between just us two, claim his edit was "preferred" when again it was just us two, and claim my edits were "disruptive" when his edits were the ones removing content. The last straw was an RFC that he started, with a very slanted paragraph explaining the issue. After two days and only two other opinions voiced, he counted !votes and declared consensus and unilaterally reapplied his revert -- and this was only sixteen hours after my latest version which addresses all of his stated concerns. It became evident at this point that he was not interested in compromise or consensus, he simply wanted my contribution excluded and intended to count !vote as a basis for the exclusion.

The problem is, now one the people who expressed an opinion in the RFC is engaging in the reverting as well. I don't think this person is a sock puppet, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me at all if it turned out to be one.

If you made it through this entire post, I thank you since I know it's a lot to read. But I wanted to be as clear as possible what my reason is for needing help, because this has gone on for too long and I need help since consensus and compromise have proved impossible.

Thank you, and I appreciate any help you can offer. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)