Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:35, 20 June 2010

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #46

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

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

Sorry to anyone waiting for a response or assistance from me over the last couple of weeks. I am currently very busy with Wikimedia Australia work and am not available for the immediate future. You are still welcome to leave messages here and I will attend to them on my return, but if you require administrative assistance, you would likely get a faster response by finding an available administrator via the List of Admins or by requesting assistance on the Administrators Noticeboards or one of the dedicated noticeboards listed at the top of that page. Sarah 04:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

regex question

Hi, Sarah. I notice you have abusefilter privileges. Mind if ask you a regex question (connected with Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos)? -- Rrburke (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I have the abuse filter manager rights but I don't actually edit the abuse filter so I'm not a good person to ask. I only turned the rights on so that I could access and read the abuse filter after reading an RFA where stuff about edits to the abuse filter were raised and I wanted to check them for myself. But I've never actually edited it before. Soap (talk · contribs) and Stifle (talk · contribs) both seem fairly active on it; you could try asking one of them. And John Vandenberg could probably help, too, as he's very clever with that type of thing. Cheers, Sarah 04:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 June 2010

• News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Misplaced Pages project concludes, brief news

• In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Misplaced Pages used in Indian court, Is Misplaced Pages a cult?, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Cite Question

Must all cites mention the specific name of the subject within the article? For example, I have no articles from 1980 that mention me and Legi/Slate, although I have two cites that show it was subsequently sold to the The Wshiington Post by the partners as I asserted. Those two cites have been disallowed. My contention is that they at least "prove up" about legi/Slate itself in light on no better articles. One editor says it is Wikipedi policy that the subject MUST be listed specifically in the cite. Is that accurate? My fear is that the Legi/Slate section will be removed by future editors saying it has no cites. (Meanwhile I will redouble my own efforts to find a suitable cite). Thanks. Dmartinaus (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor could link to the exact policy wording, as I'm not aware of it. We use whatever information from reliable sources is necessary to provide the article material which readers will find helpful. Sydney Newman is a featured article which appeared within the last few days on the main page. It describes Newman's involvement with the TV series Doctor Who. In reference #23 it then provides further information on Doctor Who from a source which makes no mention of Newman himself. Doubtless you will find support here from Nineteen Nightmares, who is the main contributor to Valley Entertainment Monthly. You will note that of the few references which can be checked online, references #5 and #10 make no mention of Valley Entertainment Monthly, the subject of the article. Ty 01:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Given these examples I would like to see the two Legi/Slate references added back into the Donald G. Martin page. They are both EXCELLENT references to Legi/Slate. (Disclosure: This is Don Martin, subject of the article). Dmartinaus (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No need, I added 2 refs that show Martin and Legi/Slate from the 1980's. One published by TX Lege Council. GregJackP (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. I've been looking for references all day. Somewhere around here in the attic I have a box of old Legis/Slate materials. Dmartinaus (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Don, there's no rule I'm aware of that a reference must specifically name the article subject in order to be used. But it all depends on what the references are and what they're being used to cite. The reference needs to support the information they're being used to cite, but there's not an arbitrary rule that every reference has to mention the article subject or get chucked. It was a public holiday here on Monday so I've just had a holiday weekend and haven't had a chance to catch up on all of the above yet so please bear with me. Sarah 03:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. As you know by now Nightmares filed an Afd as well, which apparently was rejected. I know I promised you to keep cool, and I am. But I did make a mostly calm and hopefully articulate point-by-point rebuttal to his rather outlandish statements to justify the Afd. It is on the Talk:Donald G. Martin talk page. The afd was on my personal Dmartinaus talk page for some reason, but I finally found it. It seems to me that ALL of these discussions should be taking place on the main article talk page for everyone's benefit, and not on your talk page, or mine, or Nightmares. Thanks for taking a look. Dmartinaus (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous comment though, there's two issues here - one is the issue of verifiability and ensuring the article is fully sourced, and the other is notability. To establish notability, we require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in third party secondary sources that are independent from the subject themselves. For citing material, we can use lesser sources and sources that just support the material they're being used to cite, but we still require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in order to sustain a claim of notability and qualify for an article. No, I didn't know that a new AFD was started. I'm sorry I didn't get here sooner as 19Nightmares asked me above if they should do so and I just replied that it's too soon after the last one, not realising they'd already gone ahead. I agree that it *may* end up having to go back to AFD, for several reasons including the fact it was closed as borderline and it has turned out that there were several COI people participating with undeclared COIs, but four days after the last one closed is way too fast. And yes, I concur that the discussions should be centralised on the article's talk page and not spread out across user talk pages. I don't mind people using my page if it helps them resolve things but it's generally much better keeping discussions about article content on the article's talk page. Sarah 04:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. 1) Re the following: "To establish notability, we require multiple sources that provide significant coverage about the subject in third party secondary sources that are independent from the subject themselves." The article originally had multiple citations for various notability items, but these were largely removed by NN over time as being "duplicative" and he said don't worry, most articles don't have that many references anyway. Some were removed when they were even the only ref remaining (Texas Government Newsletter ref was removed entirely, for example). 95% of the reference citations are to third=party articles and such and not to anything sourced by me or my own bio, website or such. I have additional excellent third-party independent references on several major "milestone" items in the article.

2) Because NN so severely questioned verifiability of the articles (because the Business Journal and Statesman are paid archive sites) I created the web page to provide full text of ALL of the articles. So they should be completely verifiable now. Should I now also provide a list of other articles for re-consideration and re-placement back to the page? I could make a list of the titles only for now and post them on the web site for editors to consider if they are useful. I don't want to get back on everyone's nerves in a battle with NN, and I think I should try staying off the Talk Pages for awhile, but I am happy to take the time (off the talk page) to provide multiple credible, independent notability citations. Dmartinaus (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification re the advisability of having "multiple" secondary third party sources. Someone had removed all but a single reference for most items. So in addition to the recent webpage I created with "full text" of all referenced articles, I added a second page with additional secondary third party published sources (doing just a few quick on-line searches for articles) that can be used if anyone wants to do so. They are available at www.wikipedia-article-verification.webs.com (or just click below). Don Martin Dmartinaus (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald G. Martin

Sarah, the "nothing" references are appearing again like daisies in Spring for this article, carfully hidden amidst the many, many others. Now we have these two that suddently popped up, both about a legislature book that the link itself says was prepared by the legislature itself. Was Donald G. Martin in the Texas Legislature? How can he claim this as a reference? No mention.

• Texas State Directory (Austin, TX: Texas Pub. Co.) 24. 1981. OCLC 7209574.
• Texas Legislative Manual (Texas Legislative Council). 1983. OCLC 145401727

I believe they are listed as numbers three and four, but c'mon. Here we go again. YOu can't keep up with the horsepucky on this one. Arghh!!!! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Sarah, I feel the need to comment on this, even though the point is moot as the Martin article is now gone. Both of the references were found in WorldCat. Both of the directories contain entries for lobbyists, media, and other assorted entities that legislators and their staff would be interested in, not just elected officials or state employees. Both directories listed Legis/Slate with Don Martin as a principal. The refs included the OCLC numbers and links, meaning that they could be verified. The Texas Legislative Council is a state support organization for the Texas Legislature. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, both Ty and I requested that Balloonman reconsider the AfD closure for reasons outlined on his talkpage and he started a DRV on the issue. I didn't know if you'd be interested. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make the same request just now when I saw your comment that the DRV had already been started. Minor4th (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

-Sigh- That is most unfortunate. Sarah 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not following you on that. Are you in favor of deletion? Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sarah, why is my comment unfortunate? I know that you endorse the closure and delete, but I would like to know if your comment indicates that i offended you in some way. Thanks. Minor4th (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't directed specifically at you, and no, you haven't offended me - not at all! It was just a general comment about the idea of DRV and more time being wasted arguing about someone I don't think is notable. If it does get restored, it will be going straight back to AFD and I'll be voting delete this time unless I start seeing the kind of significant coverage required by the policies and guidelines, rather than simply articles reflecting his pr work - articles quoting him as a spokesperson, quoting press releases, articles about projects he's involved with which mention him or his firm in passing etc. All the sources I've seen (and I've spent hours on Factiva looking for material) have just been the type of articles you'd expect to see come up for any working pr person. So I just don't see notability here and I think it's a real shame seeing so many good people being played and manipulated and having their time wasted and the project being abused by puppets (sock or meat, whatever) for outside agendas and interests. 8| Sarah 01:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Minor4th (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm cross-posting this here from the DRV discussion because I am a little concerned over your interpretation of my earlier comments as being insulting.

Sarah, my comments above were not meant to be insulting, I was just trying to explain how it came across to me. My impression of your comments was that the AfD !vote was tainted by the socks - as it clearly was - but then that once the socks were removed, we discard the reasoning of the other, presumably reliable, editors? It would be just as easy for any of us to feel insulted by the implication that our arguments were not valid or otherwise "strong" enough, but I have made a choice to WP:AGF and believe that you have a different opinion, not that you are belittling us or our arguments. I agree that mere mention of a PR specialist's name is not sufficient for notability, just as I believe that the single book on postcards does not confer notability, but that is not the only thing here. There are references for his involvement in Legi/Slate and the Texas Government Newsletter, in the TDSL/WMI lawsuit (the later had numerous refs explicitly discussing Martin and his role), etc. Reasonable people can disagree without taking it personally. As I stated, my comments were not meant to be insulting, but to point out a stance that appeared to me to be inconsistant. At no point did I impugn anyone's integrity, nor do I believe that any of the admins involved are just pulling things out of thin air - but we are all human and subject to error, mistakes, emotion, and inadvertant mis-interpretations. I just think that Misplaced Pages would be better served to relist, and don't see a point to one's statement that the other side does not have a clear understanding of either the AfD or DRV process just because they are making a different argument. Perhaps S Marshall's idea of listing this on the BLP noticeboard will help by getting some fresh eyes to look at this - I know it worked when SheffieldSteel came in to look at the lawsuit section.

Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nom for Valley Entertainment Monthly

Sarah, not sure it means much, but the timing of the AfD of this article is oddly suspicious since it was my first attempt at adding an article to Misplaced Pages and was hard fought to keep, in fact was userfied for a time until I could get all the sources in front of me, which I eventually did and it has 16 legitimate references, including major national publication reviews, but Minor4th has decided that after all that, it should be nominated again. After all the fuss in the first place and the article eventually being kept, why is he again nomming it for AfD? It pretty clear it is a punitive measure in some way related to the Donald G. Martin debacle. I assume he is within his rights but as far as a 'mean spirited' gesture, it doesn't get much worst than that kind of passive aggressive garbage. And it is, unfortunately, why good editors have a tough time staying around and trying to help improve Wiki. It shouldn't be... Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

WQA for Nineteen Nightmares

I have referred Nineteen Nightmares for personal attacks and incivility at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. Since you have been involved in this matter, I believe that it is appropriate for you to be made aware of this matter. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Banning

Sarah, as you might have noticed above, there is an attempt to get me banned. My only concern with this is very closely related to a comment you made to me about the Martin article, that you were concerned if I was gone, it would simply revert to a puff piece. It looks like they are attempting to bring it back and the ban they propose for me is a draconian three months! That should give them plenty of time, but seriously and though I've been prickly here and there, my complaints have been genuine and largely ignored. I think that would get anyone pretty upset. Still, I'm trying to hold it together here. Please be aware that they are also throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there in regards to accusations, but most of it (here we go again) is stuff that all happened before the day ban that GregJackP trumped up with an supe who didn't realize everything that was going on at the time. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Ninteen Nightmares

Also, a ban doesn't mean all that much to me except that interested parties are going to try and get the Donald G. Martin article back up there in all its Madison Avenue glory. I can still read Wiki and that is my true love. I've enjoyed editing but see it is not so much "come to work and edit," as "see if this group of people who are already established will let you edit." You may not see it that way, being a supe and all, but as a relatively new user, its been difficult, to say the least. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Wow, okay, that seems rather premature but I haven't been closely following developments over the last few days. I thought you were doing much better since the block but it looks like you might have slipped since they AFD'd the newspaper article. I think you might need to acknowledge on ANI that you recognise that and agree to go under a civility parole. Which would mean that you agree to comply with the civility policy and if you violate it, you'll be blocked in incrementally increasing blocks. I would also advise you to not get sucked into arguing with them on AFD - it's really not going to be to your benefit as it makes uninvolved people unwilling to bother with it if they have to trawl through long arguments. You can't be banned on the basis of a so-called "consensus" of people so deeply involved in disputes with you. There must be a consensus of uninvolved and uninvested people. Sarah 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. I've decided to take a Wikibreak from editing for a while anyway. It is pretty hard to come here with good intent and have a group of editors conduct themselves this way. Honestly, most of what I am being accused of is patently untrue or is the stuff that I was banned for already. There is absolutely no question they are going gorilla here to get rid of the fly in the oinment, so to speak. Many, many exaggerations and untruths have been told, I suppose in the name of making me look like Frankenstein, but in reality I am only here to improve Wiki however I can.

I'll give you a couple of examples of untruths that are being told about me. Modernist claimed that I "deleted other people's articles" and now "feel sorry for" myself that "my" article will be deleted. First, its not my article. I just put the basic info there. My disagreement has almost entirely been about the publication's notability, which would not have been an issue if I hadn't been opposed to the Martin piece. The only article I ever nommed for deletion (and didn't even do it right) was the second Martin piece and that has been explained as a misunderstanding and mistake. In reality, what I did was decide that after my piece was userfied, I'd join the AfD discussions precisely because of the way I was treated. Yes, I voted delete on some when they were patent garbage, but what Modernist is not telling you is that I voted a number of times 'keep' and incidentally, spent a good deal of time cleaning up this article and arguing strenuously that it not be deleted, and it wasn't: Drum Workshop.

Ban or not, I'm pretty much done with arguing with that group because they are not listening at all anyway, so its a waste of time for everyone involved. There is no dialogue, just "this isn't right...delete!" The site's own rules state you should help someone that doesn't know any better, not treat them like dirt and tag and delete everything in sight, six editors deep! Whether or not these people agree with me or not, I have many times tried to open a topic of discussion with them and my queries go almost entirely ignored or are answered in a way that is no answer to the question at all. The following people were originally involved in the Valley Entertainment Monthly article, all hostile to it at the time:

• Modernist
• Ty
• JNW
• Pdcook
• chzz

The following have been heavily in involved in the Martin debacle and were responsible for my ban proposal:

• GregJackP
• Giftiger Wunsch
• Minor4th

That basically leaves only one individual outside of the discussion, Salvio, who has cast a non-biased vote based on exaggerations of the editors endorsing the Martin piece.

JNW has claimed to be neutral but he was probably the worst offender as far as attacking the VEM piece while it was under construction, though he is making the claim to be impartial now because he came in after the nom and wasn't part of the Martin issue. Anyone can go and look at my edits and see that Modernist is not being entirely truthful here. It is disengenuous of him to make a claim of impartiality here. Same with Pdcook, but I think he's actually one of the good guys. You can see his statement is just his unemotional opinion, which I certainly respect.

I will still be around to read comments, I just feel like this back and forth junk is not productive at all and a waste of my time. I started to edit to make Misplaced Pages better, not argue everytime I correct a spelling error or try to tighten up an article's tone or presentation, which I have done a number of times, even occasionally just a small edit here and there for clarity. That is the whole of my intent and this group has continually antagonized me to the point I say something and then they run off to get me banned. Wow.

But when all is said an done, I'm glad there is at least one person here who sees what is happening: a group of editors with an agenda trying to get rid of one who opposes the article they seek to keep. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I was just reading the ANI discussion about me and I noticed that several people are now claiming I "threatened" to call a newspaper on Mr. Martin. Not true, but I did point out that since was concerned about his reputation, it wasn't a good idea to make such a stink because journalists will get a hold of it eventually if it goes on. This isn't rocket science: time + controversy = newspaper article. Never did I threaten to call a newspaper on Mr. Martin, and in fact when I saw that, I went to his talk page and told him so because I was concerned he would believe it. In any case, I will not be contacting any media personally, so again, they are seeing exactly what they want to see and not reality. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Yeah, I agree, I didn't read that was a threat but a warning about the reality of how the press love to create front page scandals out of that type of thing. There have been plenty of cases where people have done the wrong thing on Misplaced Pages and it's ended up being a scandal in the press. And I've actually thought several times myself that I hope Martin understand this, which is why I kept telling him that I hoped he understood that his actions here are publicly viewable. The problem really isn't the central message you are trying to share but the language you use. Misplaced Pages's behavioural policies are pretty clear about requiring people to be civil and if you continue being aggressive, abrasive and uncivil, it's just a matter of time before you do get banned. If you're right about people going after you, you're just playing into their hands and making it easier for them by snarking back at them. Don't give them any excuses and if you feel angry or you think someone's an idiot and you want to let loose on them, it can be best just to walk away from the computer for a while and come back when you've cooled off. I do that all the time! I've got to go offline now but I'm hoping that the involved people will back off now and allow uninvolved people to review and address the issues raised there. Sarah 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah for all your work. One last thing: I followed your advice and chopped off about half the data in the Valley Entertainment Monthly piece as you suggested. I also just realized that most of my refs were not refs at all but should have been listed as "notes." This has been corrected and only two references remain, albeit solid ones. Everything else is now a note. All but one external link has been removed as well. No one can say I didn't at least try. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Comments on Socks

I am addressing this here to make sure that you were aware of my response (I've already commented on the AN/I about it).

You stated here "I actually don't blame him for those sock/meat puppet views as I reached similar suspicions entirely on my own when I first read the AFD and became involved with the Martin dispute and I very nearly included a couple of the accounts he's now apparently expressed suspicions about in my SPI evidence. I don't think they're socks of Martin or they would have come up in the check of Martin's IP, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there are other socks being run here."

The only ones that 19N had suspicions on were myself, Minor4th, and Giftiger. As far as this goes, if you have evidence to support the innuendo that I am a sock, meat or puppetmaster, then file a report with WP:SPI. Otherwise, this appears to be borderline violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You are an admin, I'm a mere editor, you can do whatever you want with relative impunity, but it is not right for you to insinuate that any of the three of us are socks. Just because you disagree with some of my positions is not grounds to trash my reputation on Misplaced Pages. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Greg but it's rubbish to say that I suspect further socks because I disagree with some of your views. It's an outrageous violation of AGF. You haven't even bothered to ask me why I think that or what evidence I might have come across - you just instantly assume that it comes from bad faith motives - exactly as you did when I endorsed the DRV and exactly as you did on ANI when I opposed the ban. These accusations from you are tiresome and they're constantly assuming bad faith of me. Please stop it. Sarah 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm included in the innuendo about Martin socks, I would like to ask you why you think that or what evidence you might have come across. Thank you. Minor4th (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)