Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:18, 10 May 2010

Temporarily yours... lol, what am I, an escort agency? :)

Hey there, I have enabled my email temporarily, would like to get your opinion on a subject or two, would you mind shooting me an email? thanks. Maelefique (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please...

... stop making changes and "reorganizing" the talk page? It is not very helpful, as one loses track of what is happening there. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you politely to stop refactoring the page. Do I need to request a review of your actions by an administrator so that you stop? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why do you keep deleting this post? . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 1RR probation

Per the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Prem Rawat 1RR parole proposal, the articles now in category:Prem Rawat are on special 1RR and disruption probation. A notice describing the probation is at talk:Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:DAtkins.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DAtkins.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 13:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Gary_ewing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gary_ewing.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new law-related task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Onefinalstep,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Misplaced Pages all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Misplaced Pages (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Misplaced Pages:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Misplaced Pages are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman /_WP:Hornbook 02:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson

Joe Wilson didn't support the outburst, did he? He apologized as fast as he could. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

fyi

Not sure if you're aware, but you made the NYT. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Also, cool that KillerChihuahua notified you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mark Levin

Please do not remove content without giving an explanation first or citing discussion per the talk page. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 02:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

4RR on Mark Levin

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mark Levin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --BobMifune (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Onefinalstep. Your edits are being discussed at WP:AN3#User:Onefinalstep reported by User:BobMifune (Result: ) on the 3RR noticeboard. You may add your own comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR case at WP:AN3#User:Onefinalstep reported by User:BobMifune (Result: Warned) has closed with a warning to you. I do not find that removal of the criticism section is justified by the BLP exception listed in the WP:3RR policy. The criticism is well-sourced and is not defamatory. Hence the question of whether to keep it in the article is a question of WP:UNDUE weight, which is decided by normal editor consensus and does not immunize you from the 3RR policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

False accusations

Unless you can back up your false accusations made here, I believe you owe me an apology. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Protocols

What are you doing? The correct procedure for treating text without citations, unless it is obviously inappropriate text, is to add a {{cn}} tag so that someone will see what a citation is required for and provide one. You can't just delete acres of material on the grounds of being uncited. Some of what you are deleting is good text that is easily fixed and cited. Zero 13:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 - Block

Onefinalstep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why I was blocked as no reason was given except for the template shown above. I contributed to the page Vera Baker contributing the information that was released about this person on May 1, 2010 in the press. I engaged in discussion in the talk page and did not in any way act abusively to others or the page. After adding the information about Vera Baker concerning the National Enquirer the information (which was all cited and sourced) was deleted once by user MuZemike with no formal additions to the ongoing discussions. I reverted the complete deletion that the user performed and the information was then deleted by user NuclearWarfare without contribution to the discussion. Then I added comments to the discussion page about why the information was useful for the page Vera Baker and re submitted the section in question. At this point I was blocked by user Blueboy with no explanation. From my view point there was no violation of WP policy and, even if there was, it is odd that a block would occur so swiftly for information that was added with sources and then deleted by others without contribution to the discussion. It is my opinion that user NuclearWarfare is making the page Vera Baker into "his" page by vigouously deleting all information concerning the news of May 1st. I'm unsure as to why I deserve a block for anything that was done. I basically added relevant information to the page ... it was deleted twice and then I was blocked. No edit war occurred and at all times I was adding to the discussion page in a constructive manner. If the editors could please look into this I would appreciate it

Decline reason:

Did you say "National Enquirer" is being used as either a Reliable Source, or even as a source of news? There's no discussion needed - the addition of anything from that "source" is a horrific violation of WP:BLP, and trying to enforce its addition is pure disruption. (talk→  BWilkins ←track) 20:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reply to Bwilkins: I would like to reply by asking you to at least look at what the topic was that led to the block. Of course using the National Enquirer as a source to prove a claim made in the magazine would be absurd because of the magazines reputation. But the addition that I made was proving that the National Enquirer stated what it did. In other words I wasn't using the magazine as a source for a fact ... I was using the fact that the magazine reported this news to prove the very same. So in other words it is true that the National Enquirer wrote this story. And the truth of that fact was what I was using the magazine to support.Onefinalstep (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing administrator: Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vera Baker and WP:GRAPEVINE before reviewing this request. NW (Talk) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Blueboy96

I was just doing some research on this admin and it seems that this is one of a number of times he has used his ability to block people arbitrarily and without warrant. There have been numerous complaints against his abuse of this authority and I think the fact that the block in my case was given w/o any sort of dialog/warning/discussion should lead some to question his status as an administratorOnefinalstep (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See, Here, Here, and Here. This admin is causing a lot of users stress and irritation with his heavy handedness. I can definitely say that having an admin like him is going to discourage people from contributing to WP.Onefinalstep (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Emailed Blueboy96 concerning this block on May 1st 2010 with the following:

Hi Blueboy96,

I'm writing to request an unblock to my account. I realize that the block was in response to my edits on the Vera Baker page. I would like to be unblocked so that I can discuss the block with other admins and to participate in other areas of WP. I will condition this request by promising not to edit or engage in any discussion concerning the Vera Baker page for the 72 hour period beginning from the block. I would hope this promise (although from a complete stranger) would suffice to convince you to unblock.

Thanks,

Onefinalstep

Onefinalstep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am appealing the decision made about my block by User Bwilkins because I am afraid that there was a misunderstanding about what actually happened - most likely due in part to my lack luster explanation in the first unblock request. I will not use this template again and realize that this could be viewed as "abuse" of the unblock request system, but I do honestly feel - after having read the reasons given by Bwilkins that another explanation is needed. :On the page Vera Baker I added the fact that the National Enquirer had written a story on Vera Baker on May 1st 2010. I was in no way attempting to say or claim that what the story said was true. Bwilkins assumed that I was using the National Enquirer as a source to some fact it printed which, as he explained rightly, would not be a reliable source. But I never tried to use the publication as a source to back up the facts that it printed. The fact that I was trying to source with the National Enquirer was that it did in fact print the story. If you wanted to prove that a story was indeed printed you would obviously cite the publication that printed it. This has no bearing on whether what they printed was true only that they did print it. :Now, regarding the block. I am arguing that blocking someone for adding a true fact that is sourced without engaging in discussion and without contact or prior warning to the contributor that what he added should not be there for whatever reason is unfair. This is what happened between user Blueboy96 and myself. Nothing about the block has anything to do with whether the National Enquirer was accurate in its reporting. That the National Enquirer reported was the fact that I was asserting ... and I'm sure everyone would agree that this is undoubtedly true. :I asked Blueboy96 to unblock me with the promise that I would not contribute to the Vera Baker article for the proscribed 72 hour period. The email is pasted above. I would like to engage other administrators in questions regarding this whole circumstance and an unable to do so at the moment because of the block. Please consider this request and also the fact that I am uninterested in further edits to the original page in question for the next 72 hours.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violations of the biographies of living persons rule. Any unblock request that you make should show evidence that you've read and understood that rule, and have a plan for following it in the future. A promise to avoid contributing to Vera Baker wouldn't entirely solve the problem, because we don't know that you won't go on to break that rule on a different page. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

An encyclopedia article does not need to include everything that has been printed, but only that information that can be verified to be true. For example, it has been printed that Queen Elizabeth II is a reptilian alien, but the article about her does not include that information about her, because it has not been verified that she is indeed a reptilian alien. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be relevant if the article is "Famous Rumors about the Queen of England"Onefinalstep (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So you don't see any relevance to the edits you were making? That indicates that you don't understand the reason for your block- until you do, you aren't likely to find anyone willing to overturn it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I do see relevance to the edits I was making. Otherwise I wouldn't have added them. If you look to the discussion page on the Vera Baker article you will see the ongoing discussion over whether the information is relevant. I was blocked because the admin Blueboy simply disagreed which is a hell of a way to win an ongoing argument. Its interesting that no one has actually made a case against me that the info is not relevant or ok under BLP. Blueboy simply "declared" it wasn't. How is that compatible with the "consensus" making that WP is supposed to employ?

I understand the reason for my block. The reason is that Blueboy69 blieved that the information added was against BLP. This is ok and I would have gladly entered into a discussion with him about it along with all the others who were currently talking about it. But of course Blueboy didn't even contact me he just blocked me. Whether or not BLP was violated is something that should have at least been discussed with me before a block was issued. Is this unreasonable? I don't care to argue the relevancy of the info at the moment because it is clearly irrelevant what I think given what happened. This is fine but of course no one is explaining to me for what purpose the block is still in place for. I have read and understand BLP. When two people disagree about BLP what should happen? This is an important question given what did happen. If disagreement over BLP simply means one person gets blocked perhaps WP should include that in the BLP outline so that contributors can be aware of the consequences before they dare to interpret the policy for themselves.Onefinalstep (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat unwilling to consider unblocking, seeing as though not just one, but TWO administrators (NuclearWarfare and MuZemike) told you that the National Enquirer was not a reliable source. and you continued to add it after being told of this. Under BLP, we must pay particular attention to a source's reliability. Unless a more reliable source has picked it up as well (as happened with the John Edwards affair), the National Enquirer article cannot be used as a source. Period. Blueboy96 22:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

First Should the Block remain?

The answer to this must turn on what the point of the block is. If its to prevent me from further "violations" then I can't see the need cause I am clearly willing to engage everyone in discussion and also promising not to re submit the information. So at this point the block is just punitive and without utility.

Second Why was I blocked?

This is the real conversation that I want to have. But of course I am unable because of this block ... except for on my own talk page. Also ... to your point on being "told" twice. I think this is probably true (I haven't gone back to look at the time stamps). What I will say is that in all my editing on WP when someone "tells" me I am in violation of WP policy I have been able to carry out a conversation with them on that point to some end. If you look at the discussion page for Vera Baker you can see that I was definitely doing that exact thing. I was debating them. We had different opinions on the BLP. This is clearly true. Now is it the case that when one person has a different opinion that they should be blocked? This is really worrisome to me. Also ... why didn't you even talk to me before you blocked me? You made a statement here to other editors that "... in fact I am going to block Onefinalstep right now." Do you not see how this is insanely authoritarian? No discussion? Just "you are wrong and I'll prove it by blocking you?" You were talking about the GrapeVine policy with other people before you went and banned me for violating it. Why did you not talk to me? I have constantly stated that I might have been wrong ... but am I appealing to the masters of policy here or am I a valuable contributor on WP who can interpret and discuss the policies as well? Today seems to have proven to me the former.Onefinalstep (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Duration of Block

Was 72 hours really necessary?Onefinalstep (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

{{cn}} tags

There's nothing wrong with a few {{cn}} tags, but adding dozens can be considered vandalism. Adding a {{refimprove}} banner at the top of the article, as you did, usually is sufficient. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Blueboy96's Block Violates WP Policy

Reasons for Blocking

According to WP Blocking policy:

All blocks ultimately exist to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. When lesser measures are inadequate, or problematic conduct persists, appropriate use of a block can help achieve this in four important ways:

1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Misplaced Pages.
2. Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior, by making it more difficult to edit.
3. Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.
4. Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

For the purposes of protection and encouragement, blocks may escalate in duration to protect Misplaced Pages while allowing for the cessation of disruptive editing and the return to respected editing.

• Onefinalstep's block did not further any of these goals.

  The block was issued thirty minutes after my editing stopped. Prevention of damage could not be the purpose because after I stopped editing the article I engaged in the discussion page in good faith. This is reviewable by all who look at the talk page of Vera Baker

  No disruption was at hand. Again, I had stopped editing the page and had engaged in the discussion in good faith. And also no discussion was had by Blueboy96 with me over what my interests were or whether there was even going to be a block. How could he know that there was a need for deterrence?

  There was no need for encouragement to stop the "current behavior" because it had already stopped.

  No need to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style" because I had stopped engaging in editing and went to the discussion page. But this did not seem to matter.

Duration of Block

According to WP Blocking Policy:

The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider:

• the severity of the behavior;
• whether the user has engaged in that behavior before.

Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address.

While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards:

• incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;
• accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;
• protective blocks typically last as long as protection is necessary, often indefinitely.

• Was the likelihood that Onefinalstep would engage in the behavior complained about continue?

  Notice the email I sent to Blueboy96 concerning the whole issue.

  Was the behavior "severe?"

  Three (Three!) edits! This is not severe. Especially since I engaged in the talk page and stopped editing after a possible edit war was apparent.

  Whether the user has engaged in that behavior before

  Nope ... but did Blueboy96 check for this? I would like to know.

• "incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in 24 hour blocks."

  So what is the reason I had a 72 hour moratorium put on me?Onefinalstep (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for abuse of multiple accounts per this edit: . Applying the duck test, Genesis274 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a pretty clear violation of WP:SOCK, using an alternate account to give the impression of support in for your position in a dispute. You cannot possibly have thought that was acceptable. Some people have been blocked indefinitely for this, I think you need to take some time to digest the many reasons given to you over time for your original block - you need to drop the martyr complex and understand why what you did was a problem, something you have repeatedly failed to do. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for stopping by and being constructive.Onefinalstep (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY