Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 11 June 2010

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nudge

The AfD at Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism closed with no consensus to delete. DigitalC (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. RL is shoveling ordure onto my plate at a bit of a clip at the moment, but examining the potential for reorganization in that family of articles should make a nice break this weekend or next. Reception by the modern medical community is a trifle unwieldy, but is fairly descriptive of most of what is left after merging with History and Palmer. Ponder, ponder. 2over0 public (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I dare you...

... to replace our current article on the "MMR vaccine controversy" with this graphical representation. (Come to think of it, the comic is actually more complete and informative than our article...) MastCell  22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

After you, my dear Alphonse (haha - with my sock account I am safe from that link). How about if I just get around to uploading that graph of confirmed cases and vaccination rate over the last decade and a half, instead. Pro tip - all data looks pretty much the same to shoulder surfers. 2over0 public (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New Article

Hi! I have just created my first article. Can you please look over it? Thanks Gabithefirst (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Direct Quote

My apologies, I didn't see the second bit of the edit when I reverted. It was incorrect of me to say that he claimed that he struggled to get hits. The bit I would like to change is that the Times article 'claimed' instead of 'suggested'. Saying 'suggested' seems to lend weight and credence to the opinion and anecdote of the author, yet if it were stated to be a claim of the journalist, I believe that this would be more neutral Valyard (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. I actually see suggested as weaker - that source is not dealing even in journalistic standards of actual proof. I merged two paragraphs in that section to deal with hot and cold reading in the same paragraph. Feel free to just revert and start a section at Talk:John Edward if that does not work for you. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a balanced solution, thank you Valyard (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you around editing! :)

Hi, I've seen you now on a couple of articles on my watchlist. It's good to see you editing like, well, an editor.:) What you are doing now I think is much better than being at that sanction board. I suspect that you are a lot happier too. I hope you are well. Keep up the good work. --CrohnieGal 19:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive agreement there. As I said somewhere or another, I wash my hands of that situation. I can delete copyvios here and revert POV-pushers there, but to steal a phrase from MastCell, I am off the case for the foreseeable future.

I found out the other day that apparently some people actually read the comments to online news stories, to the extent that a friend of mine installed a FireFox extension to strip them so he would not get distracted and then driven to distraction. Even weirder, a couple of my acquaintance have incorporated finding bizarre and offensive comments into their flirting. I wonder if I should point them to the RfE timesink. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good for you to leave that behind and find something interesting and fun to do, at least I hope you are having fun now. I know the project is serious but that doesn't mean we can't have fun while we edit. :) As for sending others over to the time sink, I think there are enough editors there to fill the space there without anyone else added to the mix. I have been watching that page for a while now as you know and I am amazed at what goes on there. Do yourself a favor and stay far away from all of it. I know you will enjoy yourself more plus you won't need any sedatives or anti anxiety meds to calm your nerves. ;) Seriously though, keep up what you are doing and have fun doing it. --CrohnieGal 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby

Thanks for taking care of User:SamsX. He was reverting warnings and tags so quickly I wasn't sure what to do... Yworo (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Any time. There is usually a thread for Scibaby open at WP:SPI. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Hey! I'm currently dealing with two articles which are undoubtedly infringing on copyrights. Soon after tagging the articles for G12, the author posted an OTRS template on the talk page but it's been about 12 hours and no case number has been added. I haven't dealt much with OTRS tickets but I was wondering how long it usually takes for a ticket number to be posted on an article. From what I've seen, it's very fast. I want to make sure that a crafty editor hasn't placed the tag in the hopes that the deletion tags will just go away. Do you have any knowledge of how this works? It's apparently a very closed off section of Misplaced Pages so I'm having trouble getting information or find a good place to ask questions. Any help would be appreciated. OlYeller 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS can either be extremely quick or take a very long time. I'd be happy to help you out though; could you point me to the appropriate articles? NW (Talk) 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, speaking of OTRS: 2over0, have you considered helping out with OTRS emails? NW (Talk) 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the articles in question are US Arab Chamber of Commerce and American Cosmetics Manufacturers Association, both of which I skipped on my latest round through G12. Honestly, OlYeller, I have no idea - I saw that you were on top of those articles and thought great, I have seen that editor around and they seem full of clue, I will go worry about something else instead.

The thought had vaguely crossed my mind, NW, thanks for the spur on actually checking it out. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, full of clue. Love it. That's them and thanks for checking them out. OlYeller 04:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to remove the hangon this morning but Guy went ahead and deleted the pages. OlYeller 15:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As both were deleted per G11 as well, I don't know if it is worthwhile to search through the open tickets for this permission. Someone will probably eventually get to it while cleaning out the backlog and make the determination then. NW (Talk) 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of a new page: help

Dear sir/madam,

I understand that you may be the administrator who decided that the new page I created somehow is a copyright infringement of some sort and should be deleted.

Please help me understand what it is specifically that you believe my page is in violation of.

I am the Deputy Commissioner of the Maryland Collegiate Baseball League. We are a non-profit summer baseball league and have been since 2007 when the league was formed.

Please help.

Thanks.

Roy Snyder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starflight7 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the article you posted earlier, Maryland Collegiate Baseball League. Unfortunately, it appeared to be substantively the same as the league homepage; it may not have been copyright infringement in the usual sense if you helped write the original material, but that page does not indicate its copyright status, which defaults to all rights reserved. Misplaced Pages articles are licensed by WP:CC-BY-SA, a Creative Commons license that allows for redistribution by third parties for pretty much any purpose, including commercial use, without prior consultation or recompense. Please see also Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials and Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. If you control the material at that site, the simplest way to release it under a compatible license is simply to put a notice of copyright on the relevant pages. Please be aware, though, that any such release will apply to use and re-use by anyone and everyone, not just Misplaced Pages; moreover, the article here will be edited and will in time come to no longer reflect the original text.

There is a secondary concern, in that articles here need to focus on summarizing how topics have been treated in independent reliable sources, such as newspapers and trade publications, and should not be unduly self-promoting. Please see Misplaced Pages:Your first article for some more helpful advice on getting into the swing of encyclopedia writing. Happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Could use your advise

Hi 2/0, there is a weird situation brewing that needs some help already. A SPI case has been open for awhile now without any checkusers or clerks looking at it. I am aware that they are short on help here but this needs to be checked already to stop the socking we all know she is doing. If you look at the comments made by the multiple IP's you will see that it is SkagitRiverQueen who is doing the editing, esp. in the two articles like Charles Karel Bouley and Margaret Clark. SRQ is following her usual pattern of edits and following User:DocOfSoc around like she did prior to her block/ban. If you read the comments in the edit summaries and the talk page at the Bouley article you will see that the same statements SRQ made against DOS are the same as the new editors are doing. SRQ is using her cell phone for most of her editing because she found out on Misplaced Pages Review that the cells IP change so frequently that it's hard if not impossible to locate the socking offender. I find it very disturbing that she should be allowed to edit like this and that the sock investigation has not been looked at. Do you know of any checkusers that can look at this case and give us a yes or no or something about all of this. Editors are getting very frustrated about this so I thought maybe you could help with you wisdom. :) Seriously, I don't want to let things get out of control. It's really hard to tell sometimes if it is SRQ and at other times it's totally obvious that it is her to those editors who had to deal with her in the past. I'm hoping you have some good ideas for this one. <at least I didn't come asking for help about the cc articles! :)> Thanks for anything you can do to help and if you can't that's ok too. You're a good guy in my book either way. Be well, --CrohnieGal 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The most recent Scibaby round at SPI took about a month to resolve, though I am not sure how much of that is due to scarce resources and how much to that case getting bumped down the allocation ladder due to WP:DUCK. It is late here and I am afraid my Misplaced Pages time is pretty limited this week, but glancing at the issue it looks like a case for semi-protection (I have not checked whether that has already been applied) + WP:RBI with an edit summary mentioning WP:SOCK. Unless you find a pattern amenable to regex an edit filter, make sure that disruption is boring is unfortunately about all we can do with highly dynamic IP harassment until it gets bad enough to involve the ISP or law enforcement. I cannot comment on the merits of the case at the moment, but I promise to look through the relevant contributions later to start training my neural net on a new sockpuppeteer.

The only CU I really communicated with significantly was Lar, who resigned his tools a few months back to work as an ombudsman, so I am afraid I cannot help out there. Glancing over the list, they seem the helpful bunch you would expect. Vassyana (talk · contribs) or Tznkai (talk · contribs) might be good bets for a personal appeal, though I fear I do not actually know them well enough to advise.

If there is a good list of candidate articles for semi-protection, feel free to list it here. I subscribe to the RSS feed for this page, but an email usually gets my notice first. Good luck and commiserations, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate your thoughtful advice. The two articles last I looked were semi protected to stop her harrassing an editor she likes to get after. I'd appreciate it when you have time to take a look at what the rest of us are seeing. I fear that we maybe too close to make a call on some. I think so far we are right on, I just don't want us to see her at every article because a new editor arrives type of thing. I will see if the SPI case gets some attentions soon if not I'll try Vassyanna. I forgot he was CU. I too only communicated with Lar so I would like to know other's in the CU if you know what I mean. She is being a royal pain along the same lines as Scibaby, even with the digs at editors not liked. I am always astounded at how someone would be so interested as to sock day in and out even though they get caught and reverted. What kind of sick humor is that?! Anyways, thanks for you time, your good advice and anyting else you can think of in the future. --CrohnieGal 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

True that there probably isn't much we can do aside from periodic semi-protection of some articles and blocking socks as they show up. Nevertheless, at the moment this user's main account is set to come back to normal editing privileges at the end of a year-long ban. I think it's imperative to get an indefinite ban on the record for a user that's socking in violation of the ban, and prevent the ban from simply expiring when it was originally set to. The user can't be allowed to return after doing this. As far as I'm concerned, my only goals with this SPI are to obtain that official declaration, plus getting something on the record that the socking is occurring, to make it easier to get future socks blocked and articles protected when needed. Equazcion 16:17, 2 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Request for Enforcement?

Not sure if this appropriate, but you closed the last AN3 report with a warning, yet the WP:SPA continues to be disruptive without seeking consensus. There was an active discussion on the talk page that they refused to constructively participate in yet when the PP expired, they continued on inserting contentious content. I'm not sure what is appropriate in this case. I filed a second AN3 report that references the one you closed, but if the appropriate thing to do would have been to report it somewhere else, please let me know. Thanks for the help. jhe_iv (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you look at the Administrator's Noticeboard discussion and more closely scrutinize User:Jheiv's WP:COI/WP:OWN editing and edit-warring, 2over0. To edit-war with someone and then use one's knowledge of rules to push uninvolved editors from articles (as Jheiv is doing) is not good. Jheiv is even reverting other administrators in his drive to protect his fraternity's article. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This was a reasonable request, but I am afraid I do not have much Misplaced Pages time at the moment. EdJohnston generally has good judgement at AN3, and has protected the article now. Please discuss and come to some consensus at the talkpage, preferably with recourse to seeking outside input as recommended in WP:Dispute resolution. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An official invitation, no less

I am touched, thank you. I would not like to start a new project while I am not able to offer timely replies, but I expect to be taking a deeper look at this in not more than two weeks. Comment post-dated comment so this thread does not slip into the brink - 2/0 (cont.) 04:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to reduce tempest in a teapot at CC RfC

In light of:

• this at ZP's page
• ZP's page
• Lar's comment (which comes and goes)

would it make sense to clarify the statement in the RFC: Please do not edit others' View by sections except to add an endorsement. Threaded discussion should take place at the talkpage.

To emphasize that endorsements should be short, possibly contain caveats to indicate something short of compete agreement, but should not be used as an excuse to make a different point?

I am sure that is the intention, but not everyone is following it.--SPhilbrickT 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ENDORSE ... editors should stay in thier section, please. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note. No special exceptions or warnings have been needed. This has now been dealt with quite efficiently. Thanks everyone. Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like it has settled down as well, but ZuluPapa's point was valid.--SPhilbrickT 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I expect that at least one of the sections at the RfC talkpage should be able to accomodate any lingering issues. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Joyce

I believe that the word ``controversy should not be used in the article on Jim Joyce. It has \emph{clearly} been shown that the call was incorrect. There is no controversy whatsoever. I would make the change myself, but it is protected. 130.49.162.77 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Talk:Jim Joyce. If necessary, please follow the steps recommended at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution to arrive at a consensus of editors at that page. I am nominally a Cubs fan, especially in losing seasons, but my personal ability to judge between reliable sources in baseball is generally circumscribed by my lack of experience with the subject. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{tb|CIreland}}

{{tb|CIreland}}

Archive link: User talk:CIreland#AN3. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving me ideas

Ah you need to be careful of putting ideas in my head. Joking of course. :) Thanks for the encouragement.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bach Flower Remedies

Hi There,

I think the recent page move you did on this article to Bach flower remedy is an inappropriate application of WP:SINGULAR. The Bach Flower system is a set of 38 remedies to be used as a group, and as a system is pretty much universally referred to in the plural. If you do a google search for the phrase 'Bach Flower Remedy', this wikipedia page is the only result that comes back with the singluar phrase. All the other results on the first page use the plural. The only place you routinely see the singular used is for Rescue Remedy, which is a specific combination of the remedies that is sold as a distinctive product (and indeed outsells all the basic remedies put together).

I think the usage here is more akin to say 'Power Rangers', where yes you can say Power Ranger singular, but in common usage they are a group are always refered to in the plural as there is a group of them, which is how the wikipedia page is named. (Sorry for the odd analogy, that and Transformers were all I could think of off the top of my head!)

I hope that makes sense, thanks. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can buy that logic, thank you. Move reverted. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for listening and understanding my badly typed example! --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I could use your opinion

Hi, I'm not sure if it's your opinion I need or just some support to be honest with you. There is a big dispute going on between three editors. I just got this message left for me. I am not a meat puppet of anyone. This editor has accused about a half a dozen editors of being meat puppets of Wildhartlivie. He accuses her of even worse things. I need to know if his bad faith that he just repeated on my talk page is allowable. I responded to the message as honest as I could but without breaking my own feelings about things. WHL is my friend and I've never denied this. But that being said we all shouldn't have to be accused of being meat puppets or sock puppets like what has been going on lately. I am trying to make peace but it's really hard to when the conversation starts out so negative. If you look at Chowbok's history you will easily find what I am talking about. This is just the latest. The last couple of days have been bad. I'd appreciate your advice or even a comment at my talk page. I have a lot of respect for you which is why I've come to you now. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Fences and Windows has done about everything that can be said here except a plea for calm I just left for Doc9871 (right or not, I think their comments at your talkpage today are not very likely to lead to an amicable solution) ... although I confess that those discussions made my eyes glaze over a little. Everyone involved seems to be a long term dedicated productive contributor with occasional nips from the drama bug. Your response to Chowbok on your talkpage seems to have been exactly the best solution - calmly explain your point of view and remain open to further discussion. You are good that way :).

On a slightly related note, do you (or any helpful TPWs) know of a contributions filtering script? I use Ale_jrb's userhist script to filter article history for a particular editor, but I do not currently have anything that filters out WP:AWB or other semi-automated edits. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Captain Occam while Arb Con case in progress

You have blocked Captain Occam. This is problematic because he is a central figure in a current case before Arb Con. Without his active participation, it will be hard/impossible for the case to proceed. Would you mind unblocking him until the case is over? If he still behaves poorly, you could, obviously, block him again at that point. David.Kane (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest something similar - that is, unblocking Captain Occam conditionally (solely to participate in the ArbCom case for the 2-week block duration). Otherwise, he won't have the opportunity to present evidence or contribute to an ArbCom case where he's a central figure. MastCell  23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the block; although I think he's generally disruptive, I can't find anything recent to suggest that it's getting worse. In any case, I commented that, if he wants to present evidence, he can create a section of his talk page, and something will be done to get it into the Evidence section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not realized just how central Captain Occam is to that case, so it would be unfair to deny them participation. Thank you for your offer of copying evidence, Arthur Rubin, but I have unblocked to allow access to the case pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)