Misplaced Pages

Hate to put you on the spot...

...but as I'm sure you've noticed, I've protected 2009 Pacific typhoon season because of a dispute. Because of the constantly changing nature of the subject (and because I know you to be interested in severe weather in general), I would appreciate it if you could perhaps keep an eye out for {{editprotected}} requests and new typhoons, etc. Of course you're not obligated to do so, but I felt I should at least let you know what was "going down" :). Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for taking care of everything. –Juliancolton |  00:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) Malinaccier (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXXII

Cyanogenmod

Hi, Julian. Your AfD closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod (2nd nomination) has been circumvented by Ohjkaolwnb (talk · contribs), who created Cyanogenmod. Do you think some salt should be added to both Cyanogenmod and CyanogenMod? Best, Cunard (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. I think that while the DRV is open, it's best to keep the pages un-salted. Assuming the deletion is endorsed by DRV, then it'll be appropriate to apply create-protection. Thanks for the note, –Juliancolton |  02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see the DRV. Anyway, thanks for deleting the recreation. Cunard (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Afd: High Culture

The discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/High culture was closed with "keep", but the article High culture still carries the Afd template. I'm not very familiar with procedural matters, so I don't just want to remove the template. Could you take the necessary steps? Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Once the AfD is closed, the admin who closes usually takes the AfD tag off of the article, but I don't think it matters who takes it off once it is done. I think Julian just forgot. I took it off right now. :-)

Thanks for taking care of that, unsigned person! :) Sometimes the AfD closing script fails to complete each step properly. –Juliancolton |  14:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA response

Fashionably, someone had responded to my oppose comment on another RfA page, with the same comment that appeared on my RfA. "Super-Absolutely Strong Oppose" is appropiate enough to be an oppose comment, but I'm not sure if this is acceptable by Jimbo. Thanks for reminding me on the RfA about WP:SNOW, though. P.S:Tell StephenBuxton though, that I'm on a Wikibreak due to Wikistress.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a fairly rude and dismissive way to oppose. You should provide your rationale for opposing, and let the readers decide for themselves whether or not it's a super-absolutely strong argument. Frankly, receiving a "Super-Absolutely Strong Oppose" oppose would seem rather discouraging and redundant. That said, not everything has to be accepted by Jimbo. –Juliancolton |  14:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Im having great difficulties getting on freenode at the minute, is there something else i can use? - Also please could you change the 10-min winds under Ketsana to 55kts and add 1min winds=25kts to TD 26 please Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton (probably) isnt here at the moment but I have his talkpage on watchlist so I can try to help. Have you tried using the webchat client? It's not the same as the one that they used to use but it should work. If that doesnt work then there isnt much else you can do. Im on Freenode right now so I can attest that the network itself is still up. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 14:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep thats the one i ussually use. Its just coming up with a blank page evrey time i use it today.Jason Rees (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Get Chatzilla! And  Done with the updates, I think. –Juliancolton |  14:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Julian there. Though there is still this other client if you'd rather not download anything new. (it is working, unlike the webchat.) -- Soap /_{Contributions} 14:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages administrator

Hello Julian: As you know I'm writing a draft article about Misplaced Pages administrators. Would you be able to tell me if Larry Sanger was ever an administrator of Misplaced Pages? and is Jimmy Wales an administrator or does he have all the admin privileges by default since he's the founder? Were the co-founders both admins by default or has the definition of administrator evolved over time to make the question of Larry Sanger having been an administrator, moot? Varks Spira (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how likely an article on Misplaced Pages administrators would be kept around, but as far as I know, neither Jimmy Wales nor Larry Sanger were elected to be administrators in the conventional sense. Basically, the two of them were administrators before there ever were administrators. But my word isn't good enough. If you're writing an article, you have to base it on reliable, published sources. @harej 15:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. Yes, of course, they wouldn't be administrators and therefore they haven't gone through the Request for Adminship process, but they have the tools to get caught in a Wheel War, right? Varks Spira (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

See Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales. This indicates that Larry Sanger is not an administrator now, and that Jimbo Wales is. This log listing indicates that any changes to Larry Sanger's status occurred prior to the keeping of logs about such things, so difficult to ascertain what user rights he had at some point in the past (at least with my limited knowledge of the system). _matic 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Editorial control changes

In Time magazine I read, "Under the new plan, people can freely alter Misplaced Pages articles on, say, their local officials or company head — but those changes will become live only once they've been vetted by a Misplaced Pages administrator."(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1924492,00.html) This would greatly expand the powers of the Misplaced Pages administrator. Is this true?

No, because that statement is not true. As it currently stands anybody with the "reviewer" flag would be able to approve changes, not just administrators. Admins have very little "power" in reality. –Juliancolton |  15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Did I misread it or did Time magazine get it wrong? Varks Spira (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many sources are misinterpreting the upcoming changes regarding flagged revisions. –Juliancolton |  15:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that article is confused between the Flagged Revisions and "WikiTrust" proposals; however neither of these involve Misplaced Pages administrators directly as Juliancolton has said. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 15:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

TFAR

Your I-355 support seems to be misworded because it reads as if you support I-355 and I-355.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for the note. –Juliancolton |  19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 PTS

Could you update Ketsana's JMA winds 60 kts from the latest advisory?

Thanks --Anhamirak 19:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1-min or 10-min? –Juliancolton |  20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can u take a look at the latest cmt on the PTS talkpage please. Ive got a feeling you will find something wrong with it Jason Rees (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Barn Julian!

Hehe, glad you liked it. :) –Juliancolton |  20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I did, you should of seen my try at pirate talk at Old English's RFA, it was very poor indeed! AtheWeatherman 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Featured lists are a waste of time. Gathering references to substantiate inclusion of entries is inane, since includability is usually obvious and WP:VER clearly states that only entries that are challenged or likely to be challenged should be referenced. And since lists generally present links, the nature of the topics that are linked is explained in each those linked pages -- and those explanations are subject to referencing which provides referencing to the lists by "passing through" the links. Copying the references to the lists that already lead to them is pointless busywork.

I am strongly opposed to wasting man hours on such a task. The greatest improvement in useability and usefulness to the OOK can be achieved by tackling these priorities:

1. Fixing errors, especially those in the government branches sections of the country outlines!
2. Writing the outline article: User talk:The Transhumanist/Outline (this should alleviate confusion about what an outline is and what it is for)
3. Recruiting editors to work on the outlines
4. Renaming the outlines that are still named "List of" (there are hundreds and hundreds of these), starting with those listed at Lists of mathematics topics
5. Reformatting the newly renamed outlines
6. Further integration (links to outlines, notices about outlines, and links between outlines)

Confusion will subside over time. Improving outline instruction pages would also help.

The Transhumanist    21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Marumikan

Did you forget to delete the article instead of just the talk page? —Farix (t | c) 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, fixed. –Juliancolton |  01:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Hello. I am asking your opinion on User talk:71.112.77.101 and Private prison. In summary, I noticed that the ip has removed three references from the above article. The ip cites WP:SYNTH as the reason, but I believe that does not apply if valid references are removed. I would like to ask a second opinion before I proceed with the comments. Thanks.--LAAFan _review 02:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore

Respected, need your help. Article Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore; I had nominated it for deletion. because this article is of one private coaching class in Indore ,apart from this it disobeys many policies of wikipedia, & also discussed the matter in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore .Now this User:Wikindia24x7 has undone my nomination for deletion telling that he has wikified the Article, but when i reviewed it, i cant find any good addition. so i reverted his edits & nominated the article again for deletion. While in background this user used up different IP address to add new edit in main article Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore saying it has added up reference. but not an matter of concern. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rankers Point Coaching Institute Indore last edit "Do Not Delete-I have provided proper citations and tags.and this is top result of Search Engine.please i beg you.thanks. - User:Wikindia24x7" Done by http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikindia24x7&action=edit&redlink=1 possibly User:Wikindia24x7 I have no issue with this user but just look at his user talk page. Kindly guide us & help on all matters discussed above ...Thanks. (  Abu Torsam  08:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Jeremy Dunning-Davies

Julian: you closed the AfD discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Dunning-Davies as delete back in June, yet the article was not deleted. Please could you now delete the article? Failing to do so was not helpful. Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See here. The article was deleted, but it was expanded and improved by Headbomb (talk · contribs) and recreated. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the deletion - my apologies, Julian. There is no improvement in the article. The problems of notability mentioned in the AfD have not been addressed. This kind of editing - the recreation of recently deleted BLPs with minimal changes - is disruptive and time-wasting. Headbomb (talk · contribs) has essentially ignored the AfD discussion - he should have made his additions then. Being a spokesperson for CERN is no sign of notability, I'm afraid. Certainly the promotions committee in the University of Hull did not consider it grounds for promoting Dunning-Davies to either reader or professor. Headbomb did participate in the AfD: he claimed quite incorrectly that Dunning-Davies was a Fellow of the Royal Society. The grounds for deleting the article remain unchanged. Storing it privately when an AfD discussion has gone against you and then putting it back wth minor modifications would seem to be a blockable offense. Why is the history of the page still intact if it has been recreated from scratch? The reinstatement of the deleted article from the userspace of Headbomb seems to have been done by admin NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs). Adding one sentence to the lede after a prolonged AfD discussion and then restoring the article without discussion makes a mockery of the deletion process. The content of the article has hardly changed as this diff shows . There are several new redlinks and a copy-vio image. Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this diff at all. Apparently Headbomb recreated the article and NuclearWarfare moved it back into his userspace. I'll have to look more closely at what Headbomb did, since he went against an AfD decision and an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Julian, everyone, here's our earlier discussion . I'll have to say I don't see much difference. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I discovered that the so-called "expansion"/"improvement" by Headbomb resulted from an extremely careless misidentification of John David Davies, a spokesperson for CERN (see and ). It was not at all helpful to have added that to the lede. I've prodded the article once more as it is unchanged from the time of the AfD (apart from a few better sources that I've added). It has now been speedily deleted once the false "significant expansion" had been corrected. Mathsci (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock report of blocked user.

Hi Julian, I saw you were active and I was wondering if you could have a quick look and see if I have reported this in the correct place and in a correct way? Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Perhaps it is ok Julian as MuZemike is having a look, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It all should be good; see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnRedwood. NW (Talk) 18:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA - Abecedare

Hi - you moved the IP oppose to the discussion area on this RfA. The IP is that of a blocked user - User:Hobojaks - most recently on as User:GHALOOGHAARAA. Don't know how the concept of blocked editors coming back as IPs to comment on RfAs works, so I thought I'd alert you. The block log and SP category reference the checkuser report. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 19:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll look into that - thanks for the heads-up. –Juliancolton |  19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary Summer Rain

Julian

Could you please inform why Mary Summer Rain was deleted???

Thank you for your reply. C Long 9/28/09 24.185.161.123 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see this AfD discussion. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pohnpei Liberation Day Games Soccer 2009

Hi Julian,

I was very disappointed to see that the article on the Pohnpei Liberation Day Games Soccer tournament 2009 had been deleted. I was just wondering how it infringed on Misplaced Pages's policy. At the moment we are trying very hard to raise the profile of the game in Micronesia and documenting the first major club tournament on island for several years seemed like an important step forward, obviously then I was saddened to see the article had been removed. Do you think you could explain what exactly was wrong with it because I would love to make the necessary corrections myself?

Best wishes Paul Watson 206.49.89.133 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It was deleted in accordance with the PROD policy, which allows for an article to be summarily removed if no-one contests its proposal for deletion goes uncontested for seven days. In this case, the editor who nominated it for deletion cited concerns related to the lack of notability. If you believe you can overcome these concerns by bringing the article in line with verification policies, I'd be happy to restore it. Regards, –Juliancolton |  00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julian, Thanks for the reply. I will happily have a go at bringing the article up to standards. I have read the guidelines for notability and would try and add a few sources etc if the article were restored. Thanks Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.49.89.133 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

editor review

Hey Julian and talk page stalkers. Julian, since you nominated my RfA, you might want to comment here? No priorities, please, I'm not in any hurry whatsoever. ceranthor 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Van Jones

I believe the controversy over Van Jones has died down now, and that protection thru 16 December is no longer necessary. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the persistent vandalism following two previous protections, I think a lengthy duration is necessary. Still, you're welcome to start a discussion at WP:RFUP to see what other administrators think. –Juliancolton |  13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I usually do straight-away, but I thought I'd give you first crack at it, on a lark -- certain editors like to advise me that I should be asking the protecting admin first, prior to an un-RPP request, and so I thought I'd try doing it their way one time for argument's sake. I win, haha. I must presume, though, that you are a Euro and out of touch with the U.S. zeitgeist; this gentleman is no longer upon the MSM radar, was thrown under the bus, etc. Any few obsessive IP vandals, like moths still circling the light bulb, could be dealt with on an individual basis, imo. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm from the US and aware of the situation actually. Vandalism doesn't immediately cease as the real world controversy dies down, however. –Juliancolton |  01:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. I got Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) unprotected the other day, and it's running at one vandal edit every 12 hours or so, which is perfectly manageable, and his heckling was much bigger news (and more recent) than Jones, to even where it was the subject of an SNL skit only 9 days ago. For the most part, vandals, since they know they'll be auto-reverted, want to be and end up where the red meat story of the day is; they are a hundred times more fickle than my cats. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When you get a chance....

When you get a chance, could you do a thorough review of Tropical Storm Christine (1973)? I've used all available sources for the article so it's now fully comprehensive, it just needs fine tuning. Thanks in advance, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

k. –Juliancolton |  16:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you might be able to help...

, the page Cardinal Carter Catholic High School has been targeted repeatedly recently in great intensity. If you could change security level of the page to semi-protection and block the IP addresses that most of the edits are coming from, it would be very appreciated. Outback the koala (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any immediate action is necessary, but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the note. –Juliancolton |  17:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of passports

Thanks for the protection, it should calm things down. Could you take a second look based on my comment here on the WP:OWN issue? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Requests for mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Mediation case name has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/User:Linas and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, linas (talk)

After your rejection for mediation, I have filed a formal complaint with the arbitration committee. I am now asking you to voluntarily relinquish your admin powers, and to voluntarily take an indefinite leave of absence from editing Misplaced Pages, in recognition for for your actions. I have filed a formal complaint here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Attack by multiple admins upon User:Linas linas (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kuki-Zomi Ethnic Clash 1997-98

I'll ask you now before bothering with DRV: could you relist this as needing more time to determine consensus? The article is currently crap and I doubt anyone is going to bother cleaning it up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think consensus was pretty clear, actually, since no-one raised any arguments for deletion. Being "crap" isn't necessarily a valid reason to delete an article, and Misplaced Pages has no time limit, so it's inevitable that someone will clean it up eventually... –Juliancolton |  01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it should be deleted and one of the two commenters said it's a "possible keep". There was barely a response to the discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a given, as you were the nominator. I'm not really sure what can be done; personally I see no real reason to re-open and relist it. As always, you're free to start a discussion at DRV, or better yet re-nominate it in a few months if it hasn't been improved. –Juliancolton |  01:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed 12kb of text from the article to fix it and have notified WP:INDIA.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News