Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:56, 22 December 2008

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Archives

Archive 1 - Aug 2007 to Dec 2007 Archive 2 - Dec 2007 to Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Haaretz

if you check the section of Haaretz you will see that they (Malik Shabazz,Malcolm Schosha ) break wikipedia law. The keep calamining that you must not mention "Political allegiance" in the infobox of newspaper's article unless it is own by party but they have yet to show any wikipedia guideline article that say so.On the other hand I have shown them four important article that contradict their claim.Guardian,Times,Telegraph,The Independent in all of this article there is "Political allegiance" in the of newspaper's article.They know this and other pointing that as well.

As for Boodlesthecat he discussed this issue before as you may see in http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haaretz/Archive_1#BBC_overwhelmingly_characterizes_Haaretz_as_.22liberal.22 They issue was brought up noticeboard and eventually even Malik Shabazz admitted that the sources are good. The fact is that I Bring reliable sources in order to solve the issue and Boodlesthecat ignore from them and continue to claim that it is only according to self description even though there is no wikipedia law that say so.Oren.tal (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they are trying to keep a neutral point of view is not breaking "Misplaced Pages law". The fact of the matter is that you added 19 sources to one word on an infobox. Not only is it disruptive, it messes up the format of the infobox. --Smashville 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you lied twice doesn't mean that they have tried to keep wikipedia neutral.I have NEVER put 19 sources in the infobox.Please stop LYING.Even for administrator it is not allowed.I will talk with other about this issue.It is NOT about POV but about facts and wikipedia policy.Oren.tal (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. --Smashville 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a big different between 9 and 19.You have falsely accused me and you need to apologize for this.Oren.tal (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)The fact that you are administrator don't give you the right to falsely accuse users.Oren.tal (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, no one has falsely accused you of anything. Did someone else take over your account and add 19 sources to that line? --Smashville 18:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There are NO 19 sources there.Do you want other administrators to decide the number?There are 9 sources,not 19.You need to apologize for the false accusation you have made.Oren.tal (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is 19. You added sources 2 through 21. 21-2 is 19. Even if you had added 9, it would be disruptive. But the fact of the matter is that you added 19. Regardless, we're going to ANI. You are being extremely disruptive. --Smashville 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I count 20 <ref> tags and the diff shows Oren.tal added 19 of them in one edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you have count but inside the infobox (not the article) there are only 9.Not even one source more.Oren.tal (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you do not know how to count past 9? --Smashville 18:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The diff indeed shows 19 sources added in one edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe, Oren.tal didn't count them in the diff itself and looking at the infobox, didn't see that one has to scroll the whole window to the right to see them all, there are so many. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps...but even if he had only added 9, it still would have been a disruptive edit. And considering I had noticed some other bad faith accusations from him towards other users, I'm not sure what this user's intentions are. --Smashville 19:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I was only talking about the count. Oren.tal clearly remembered adding a slew of references, but didn't remember how many. Taken altogether, I see blatant PoV warring here. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You guys should take a look at what he's done to Gush Shalom. — ] (] · ]) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Smashville,
Going to ANI with personalized input seems unhelpful to me since this article has a heated situation where even 19 references are not enough to keep the content on the article. WP:NAM comes to mind as a better way of handling this issue and I've raised this suggestion to Oren.tal.
With respect, Jaakobou 20:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with the editor's disruptive editing style and repetitive personal attacks and bad faith accusations. --Smashville 20:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is more room for explaining his errors to him and making good faith suggestions than for applying sanctions. He's clearly not a troll and is trying to address a fairly mainstream content that's being removed. To make a personal reference, last time I've had an issue with an editor I first attempted explaining things and once this failed I requested input from a couple more admins who clarified the issue to him. Jaakobou 20:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on his edit history, I have a hard time believing he is not a troll. Sorry. --Smashville 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people need time and guidance to adjust IMHO. Is there anything specific you'd like to point to me that makes you so determined that the editor has no intentions on improving the encyclopedia? Jaakobou 19:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire above conversation. But this conversation has already been ended. There is no need to rehash it. --Smashville 19:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:76.67.105.188

Do you think its possible to get the Toronto Star delivered cross-continent, I'd love to read that article--Jac16888 (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Too bad it can't win a Pulitzer...--Smashville 02:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block of 74.37.91.194

Please semi-protected the talk page for the duration of the block. Enigma 05:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to. He hasn't edited it since he was blocked and it is perfectly within his right to remove notices. --Smashville 05:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok...I didn't refresh, but again, if he does not wish to contest the unblock, he does not have to. I do need to remind you that you are waaaaaaaaay past 3RR on his talkpage. --Smashville 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano II unblock request

Please see my comment here. You may wish to reconsider responding to the request, and instead advise the Arbitration Committee of its existence. Risker (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I restored his request. --Smashville 18:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks.  :-) Risker (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sean Avery Cite

Smashville, do you realize that being right (following Misplaced Pages policy) does not mutually exclude you from being an ass? I'm not saying that because I must resort to ad hominem attacks; I resort to ad hominem attacks because I don't like you, even though I don't know you, and I want you to know that immediately.

Irregardless, I again edited the article, this time copying and pasting the cite at the end of the (very short) paragraph so that it also references the sentence in question. It, believe it or not, addresses the assertion quite aptly.

You're probably wondering what "my problem" is, and it is this: when some Wikipedian pops cite templates onto a new user's edits and dumps copypasta onto that user's talk page, it turns off many new users. New users learn that order and inflexible adherence to policy is more important than passion for the subject. And that's just unfortunate.

...

Next time trust that an angry little edit like the original one I made may have been in good faith, or do some legwork and check up on the article yourself some, so you don't unjustifiable jump to the defense of a misplaced cite template.

69.120.150.253 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Referring to people who put tags on articles as "cite fags" is not a valid reason to remove a tag from an article. --Smashville 21:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. Calling them "cite fags" wasn't the reason for the edit. The edit was because the request for a cite was unnecessary, and the term "cite fag" is my politically incorrect term for people who pepper articles with such requests. The desire to make an improper and inflammatory comment was not the reason for the edit; that would be foolish (rather than just rude and inappropriate, which my edit summary was). Additionally, insulting you was not the reason for creating a new section on your talk page; the reason was to set you straight on the facts and the insults were incidental (okay, they weren't incidental, but neither were they the primary motivation or integral to my post).

While you persist in trying to get me to conform to what you believe to be proper conduct for a Misplaced Pages editor (admittedly, your obstinacy is supported by Misplaced Pages policy), you have failed fully to address the heart of the issue--the validity of the edit, and my subsequent re-edit (which you have not undone nor commented on)--which is the crux of my point: the content of the edit (or talk page post) is more important than its presentation or any of the non-integral elements found therein. That is not to say that unnecessary "personal" attacks are irrelevant--they are not. But you simply reverted my edit because you didn't like my edit summary without taking the time to see if the edit was valid. You invalidated the edit because you immediately invalidated my conduct, and that's just wrong; the edit is not the editor who makes the edit. It can and should be able to stand on its own.

69.120.150.253 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't add anything in that edit. You just called them "cite fags" and removed the tag. --Smashville 01:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that a deletion is not an addition, but are you aware that I claimed to make an edit, not an addition? You persist in defending your (now hollow) point about the nature of my edit summary, which I have readily conceded was improper (and did so before you made any mention of its content), and still you fail to address my points about the validity of the edits themselves. Your inability to admit your mistake (not the reprimand for the language of my edit summary, but for the unecessary reversion) is the only unfinished business we have here. Instead of trying to be righteous you should address my contention: my edit was valid on its face. The entire content of the paragraph's assertions were addressed in the cite at its end.

Please stop pretending like you don't understand that in this post you are being asked to defend the validity of your reversion as it relates to the content of the article. You didn't even mention the content of my edit summary and whether or not it was appropriate in your first post to my IP's talk page; your original post on my talk page addressed only your copypasta regarding the validity of my edit (which was a simple deletion of the cite template). I have now repeatedly defended that edit and you have failed to make one substantive point about the validity of your reversion. To re-use an argument you made in your first reply to my post on your talk page (except that I will use it in a more intelligent fashion), the inappropriateness of my edit summary is not a valid reason to revert my edit.

69.120.150.253 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you removed a tag without specifying a reason why. In addition to not specifying it, you called the person who placed it a "fag". The fact that you felt the cite at the end of the paragraph covered the whole subject is irrelevant because your reasoning was not "The cite at the end covers this", your only reasoning was calling the person who placed the tag a "fag" and that is not a valid reason for removing a tag. In addition, it is a personal attack. --Smashville 04:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What am I allowed to do now?

On Philip Payton, now the other party is blocked? May I edit? Or should I leave it to someone else? User:Sprogreeet inserted some pretty poor OR and synthesis, which is currently in the article. DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you reverted! OK, thanks :) DuncanHill (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Since you and Inferno were acting in good faith and reverting what you perceived as vandalism, you're good to go. --Smashville 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not an article I had all that much input to, to be honest. Just his edits there fall into a pattern with all his other edits, and when he started inserting material unsupported by his refs I got a bit het up! DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: Sprogeeet still doesn't seem to understand why he/she was blocked. Could you respond to them on their talk page so that they will calm down? Thanks and happy holidays ;) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 01:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Undead Warrior (talk) 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.

Have a good one. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A request

I am requesting the block of the IP address of 137.89.187.28 for the vandalism of article of Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal. Id do it my self but i do not know how and i dont possess the authority to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luedhup2 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. --Smashville 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

I thank you for unblocking my IP address. I had no idea why it was blocked as my internet is across a wireless network, and nobody along my wireless network has a Misplaced Pages account aside from myself.

Again, thank you

Dragpyre (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. If you look at the bottom of your talk page, it has something to do with TalkTalk. --Smashville 19:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, thank you for clearing that up.

i do not know if i am allowed to ask this question, or if you have been asked it before, but how did you become an admin?

also, do you have any idea why my school, Chaucer Technology School, is blocked from editing pages on wikipedia? Dragpyre (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

After you have been here a while, you can go through the WP:RFA process. Read up about it and kind of look through some other user's RfAs to see what they are looking for...you'll probably have to be on here for at least 6 months or so (I was here for a year and nominated myself). As for your school, I'm not certain, but they may be tied into the same IP issue as the you were. Also, a lot of vandalism tends to come from school accounts, so it is possible that the school has a vandalism block. --Smashville 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. you seem to be a very kind admin. I have been to some places where the moderators and admins are very unkind toward normal users.

i only joined around 1 hour and 30 minutes ago, because of the Pokemon: Shiny Gold page, which had very inaccurate information, and i felt quite unhappy that it had ended up like that.

Dragpyre (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

i will be posting references for my information soon

Why thank you. I'm going to put a welcome template on your talk page...it will have several links that you might find useful. --Smashville 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I will flick through them in due course. Also, i finished my references on the Pokemon: Shiny Gold page.

Does that mean i can take out the box at the top, which says the problems with it?

Dragpyre (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragpyre (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't untag it just yet. There seem to be some other issues with it besides the references. The tag will actually signal to other editors that there are problems on the article and they can help you get it cleaned up. --Smashville 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So, you, or someone else who is an Admin, will check it before the tags can be removed. I did everything the tag asked me to the best of my ability. The only thing that i can see that is wrong with it now, is that some sections need more information.

All the grammar and spelling was fixed, because I copied it from Word after Spellchecking it.

Dragpyre (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How are you today?

Dragpyre (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on WP:AIV

I'm sorry to badger you, but I do want to understand the process of reporting vandals at WP:AIV.

You replied: "He has not edited since his final warning. It's really just that simple. You can't tell someone this is your last warning...and then still block them despite the fact that they didn't do anything. --Smashvilletalk 01:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)"

Since then he has not vandalized anymore, so the problem is solved, but I still say it would have been correct to block.

The instructions at the top of the page say the vandal must receive "sufficient" warnings. It doesn't say how many.

When I brought the report forward, the user's talk page looked like this. He had made 10+ edits in 10+ minutes and received 3 warnings. The last warning said, "If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing." He then vandalized again.

It would have taken the same effort for you to just block him and be done with it than to say he deserved one final warning. I wasn't the one who gave the warning. Someone else did that. From my point of view, he used up all his warnings and could have been blocked then and there.

I hope you can explain the procedures to me so that I understand better in the future when to block and when it's not yet time to block. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:WARN. It will explain to you how warnings are supposed to be applied. It would have been a highly improper block had I blocked the user when they did not edit after their final warning. He absolutely did not edit after his final warning. He was warned at 1:09 for making an edit at 1:09 to May 25. He made no edits after that. As I said, it would be highly improper and make little sense to give a user a warning telling him he would be blocked for further vandalism...and then blocking him despite the fact that he didn't do anything after that. --Smashville 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see there are four levels, and I reported him after only the third level. I also see: "Likewise, if a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them." If you look at his contribution log for yesterday, I think it could reasonably be described as a "vandalism spree." The purpose of blocking is to prevent more vandalism from happening. I think it might have been reasonable to block for 10 minutes as a final warning, i.e. if you do it again you'll be blocked for longer. But I guess it's not done that way. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's all part of WP:AGF. You have to assume that he gets the final warning and realized he couldn't do it anymore...obviously, if he starts up again, he'll be blocked. --Smashville 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Smashville, I decided to accept your kind offer . Whenever you get a chance, that would be much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite welcome! --Smashville 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seriously.

I'm a vandal fighter, deletionista possibly, and I try very hard to keep the wiki free from bullshit, personal attacks, and irrelevant trivia. I don't write articles because I'm crap at it. English is my third language. I can write a blurb like this without too much trouble, but a decent article is a bit too much to ask. So I hunt instead. Sometimes I'll do some other work too, like fixing links, minor copy editing, uploading pics, or participating in AFD discussions, but most of the time it's hunting season. I try to do that the best I can. I don't tag blindly and when I get corrected or make a mistake I take that on board and try to learn from it.
Now I didn't come here for praise or barnstars but I find the general attitude towards editors like me condescending. To say the least. And the longer I'm here, the more obvious it becomes. It's quite clear in a lot of RFA, CSD, and AN discussions; if you don't have some GA-FA-DYK alphabet soup on your plate, you don't really count. Second rate. Article writers, that's what we want. Anybody can keep the wiki clean.
Oh? Anybody? Is that why there are so many (justified) complaints about wrong CSD tags, to name just one thing? Good vandal fighters and CSD-ers are at least as important as article writers. Every day thousands of articles get vandalized. No matter how well researched or brilliantly composed.
I find that "writers attitude" annoying. I don't mind cleaning up the mess but I do mind being considered a 2nd class citizen (or a trigger-happy teenager) because I "only" remove vandalism. This community obviously ranks GA-FA-DYK-ETC contributors higher and I don't see that attitude change anytime soon. I know I'm generalizing but I'm sure you know what I mean. As I said in an RFA a while ago, the writer who looks down on the paper merchant makes a big mistake. Other CSD-ers and vandal fighters may not mind getting brushed aside as some kind of necessary evil, but I do. If my work isn't appreciated I'll find something else to do, somewhere else.
That's it. Thanks,    SIS  22:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Having fun?

You must be having much fun running a kangaroo court where people are guilty until they can somehow "prove" their innocence, but are not even allowed to speak in their own defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.199.220 (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)