Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:58, 26 May 2010

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Unfortunate Incident /Archive 13 /Archive 14 /Archive 15 /Archive 16 /Archive 17 /Archive 18 /Archive 19 /Archive 20 /Archive 21 /Archive 22 /Archive 23 /Archive 24 /Archive 24 /Archive 25 /Archive 26 /DFTT /Archive 27 /Archive 28 /Archive 29 /Archive 30 /Archive 31 /Archive 32 /Archive 33 /Archive 34 /Archive 35 /Archive 36 /Archive 37 /Archive 38

Deceased Wikipedian

Hi Pedro - I see you were involved in the discussion about how Misplaced Pages deals with deceased Wikipedians. Sadly I have learned of the death of User:Johnhk31. He made the page on the Day Joyce Sheet, with information provided by Dr Bernice Archer, who is the expert on the sheet. Through Bernice I asked John's family if they would like a note putting on his user page and they have responded that they would like that. They are happy for his real name to be used. I am not sure how to proceed. Could you advise? I can forward you the email conversation if you would like. Jasper33 (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jasper - my apologies for not coming back to you sooner, and thank you for passing on this sad news. It's probably best you don't send me the email conversation as that will contain private address information I don't need to know and it's not my place to receive. My suggestion would be to simply add a note at the top of both the user page and user talk, archiving the current talk page at the same time (I can do this if you wish). Pedro :  Chat  19:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. According to this his pages should be protected (rather than archived). Can you do that? I don't know how to/whether I can as a non-admin. I don't have any reliable sources that he has died other than the emails with Bernice and his family. Thanks again for your help. Jasper33 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've protected his user page and archived the talk (and protected the talk archive too) Pedro :  Chat  11:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro. Jasper33 (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Roseleena Blair

Please take another look at this. The redirect is grossly inappropriate; the new title is itself a BLP violation, since the article subject, despite what the article claims (without sourcing), was never expelled from anything. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me review the main article for BLP issues - 1 moment please. Pedro :  Chat  20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, I've raised related issues at AN/I; I'm concerned about the newly titled article being picked up/mirrored elsewhere. Thanks for taking a second look. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to delete the main article. The redirect is entirely appropriate to the extent that we do not carry articles about people under their name when they are only well known for one event - we describe the event instead - c.f. Madeleine McCann. There is no way this event is acceptably documented under the subject's name. If you wish to get Expulsion of Roseleena Blair from the University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team deleted (which may be a good idea as the cources are weak and te notability questionable) please use WP:AFD Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that there's not a shred of documentation that the subject was ever "expelled" from anything, which is very different from being involved in an NCAA eligibility dispute, I don't understand your dismissal of the BLP issues. Whatever the merits of the BLP1E argument, it doesn't justify an article title which grossly mischaracterizes the nature of the 1E involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Floquenbeam just nuked it, so I trust you're now happy. Please note that discretion is one part of the admin role, and also doing nothing is another part. I'm not obliged to delete stuff around here. Specifically I am only mandated to delete stuff I am fully comfortable that I am deleting within policy. I support the deletion but that explicitly does not mean I had to actually do it. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah - I see it got a better redirect - happier still and I agree with Flo's comments at WP:ANI. Again, as above, take the new title to WP:AFD for consensus. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I didn't nuke it, I just moved it to a more discrete title. I'd love to A7 it, but I don't think that would fly, so I think I'll AFD it (unless you want to do the honors, Hullabaloo, since I rarely venture over to AFD). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFD - it's not a CSD candidate. Hullabaloo - let me know if you want me to post it for you. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/University of Alabama in Huntsville varsity tennis team Playboy controversy (I decided I'd exercise my afd muscles so they don't attrophy). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Howdy from across the pond

I see you've been busy IRL; hope it's all going swimmingly. WP is dysfunctional as ever, you aren't missing much. I should follow your lead and back off a bit too, this place is sucking time I don't have. Now, go enjoy your kid and I'll do the same (unless they're acting up, in which case I'll come back to the computer and hide from real life again). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kids :) Sigh - too much life and too little time to fit it all in to. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. And indeed, if only there were 30 hours/day, and 9 days/week (4 of them weekends). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Too true my friend. Pedro :  Chat  21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 2

By some jiggery-pokery I managed to fool the wikipedia software into restarting the numbers after the collapse box. However there are two problems with this:

1. The jiggery-pokery uses a deprecated attribute of a HTML tag (it has to as no CSS equivalent currently exists). Is this likely to be a problem? I've tested it in Opera, IE and Firefox and it works fine. If you don't know the answer do you know a more appropriate place to ask?
2. It's breaking the RfA tally. I'm fairly confident I know why it's doing this but are less confident about how to fix it! Is it better to have the tally correct or the numbering correct? If I can get an answer to 1 I could possible ask the bot operator to modify the bot although this has problems as well as they are on a break.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Of course all this could be moot if someone comes along with a better way of fixing it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is usually handled by someone suitably uninvolved moving the discussion to the talk page of the RFA. –xeno 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Moot now as it's been moved to the talk page. Would still like an answer to 1) as I'm sure I've come across this problem somewhere else (although I can't think where) and was thinking of creating a template for it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate place to ask would be WP:VPT, but #2 is definitely a deal-breaker for using it at RFA. –xeno 21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I sometimes forget that the Village Pump exists as it's not somewhere I have much to do with - not sure I even knew the technical sub-page existed. Will go and ask there (although probably not this evening now). I think it would be reasonably easy to change the bot to cope with #2 but I'll chase that up if others don't have a problem with the way I've done the template and I decide to take it 'live'. Dpmuk (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, discussions on the RFA page should either be visible as relevant, or moved to the talk page as irrelevant. –xeno 21:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're right - had my technical hat on and was just thinking about what would need to be done from a technical point of view. Will still ask at VPT as I'm fairly sure I've seen the problem elsewhere and now I've worked out a 'fix' it seems worth creating a template. Obviously I won't follow up the bot line now. Dpmuk (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you clever techy people! Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record on further review, with the realization it was collapsed by an involved party, and the further realization that Keepscases subsequent comment makes it clear (contrary to the first response) that it was a serious oppose, I've moved it back to the RFA proper and uncollapsed. I now return you to your regular scheduled User talk:Pedro programming. –xeno 21:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. A good call, but I've opposed the candidate so I'm not going to get further embroiled. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Where next? Research Fellow

Hi, Thanks for intervening. I noticed you protected the article. What happens next? What would be the best do with when user persists that no changes (i.e. addition of 9 citations) are possible, during an RfC? Mootros (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Commented on talk, appealing for calm (optimistically!). It's a one hour protection. I don't want to see anyone blocked over this. The RFC may give a good outcome, and I urge you to stick with it if possible. I think the position is clear that now the page has had to be fully locked down, further edit wars will result in account blocks. As an aside I'd ask you not to use WP:AIV for stuff like this as it's simply to complex for that board - use WP:ANI if the edit war re-occurs but hopefully a middle ground can be struck. Pedro :  Chat  22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive approach. We had discussion input from the MOS notice board (on some issues of the disagreement), but unfortunately this has not help to resolve the issue. Neither has the introduction of references. I will stay back for the moment; hope we don't have to take this RfC further. Mootros (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope so too, but Kushsinghmd is pushing my patience at the moment. I'm not going to be online mch longer (bed time!) but wil review at 08:00 UTC. Very best. Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pedro: First I have to thank you very much for your prompt and effective intervention. My question is clear: Why was the positions of degree switched when it is still under discussion, and the editor is part of the discussion ?!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats absolutely unethical , and compeletly unacceptable. We can't be disccuing an issue, and then because you fail to complete the discussion and fail to provide a solid argument, so you go take the action you liked that you have been trying to do several times. And to cover such unethical actions, he added few citations in a trial to make it look as if it is a constructive edit. However, If intentions were really adding citations, why then switching positions and changing the orders??????????. Yet claiming Vandalism on my side, yea right !! Again Thanks pedro, for you positive actions. Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)