Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:43, 19 October 2010

Archives

Misspelled music festivals * 2009 *2010(1) *2010(2)

Four glasses puzzle

I see you've tagged this for AfD. Could you please open the discusssion with your rationale so that I can support it with my 'delete' argument. I originally PRODed it but the creator's only response was a PA, and to remove the tag. I did not want to play his WP:GAME and WP:BAIT, so I left it at that. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you check the log page. It should have transcluded and I cannot get it to show although the page exists Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Four_glasses_puzzle --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Last of the Mohicans

Great edits on Last of the Mohicans! I just started creating J.F. Cooper articles to fill in the red links for Template:JFCooper, the first of which is The Bravo! Do you want to help? Any other eyes looking at scholarship and articles would be great! Sadads (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! Thank you so much. The Fenimore Cooper Society have rafts of stuff, but I have to confess the only book I've ever read is Last of the Mohicans. Still, if this doesn't kill me, I might take a look. I'm about 2/3 through the plot, which I feel is essential to have for this novel, as otherwise all the points about criticism, the way the plot was changed for the films etc, becomes meaningless.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, focus on the books. I will be watching the edits on the Last of the Mohicans, so feel free to ask for help. It's been a couple years since I read it, but I am here. If you need some sources on real world stuff, check out journal databases, google books, google scholar, etc, and make sure that you can do more than just the plot, but yes plot is important. Sadads (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The next section I'd really like to add is how the book came to be written. The Society website has some stuff written by Cooper's daughter about him visiting Glen Falls and getting the inspiration for it. I'd also like to add some info about how Cooper uses history in the book, and (if I can find good sources) about what he was trying to do with the story, why he put in all the stuff about the Indians and how much of it was true. I'm also interested in how it's still going as a story, even though the book's pretty much unreadable these days, just for the length (my kids have a 3 minute attention span!), let alone Natty insisting that there's no cross of blood in his veins. A few days work, and it's just about bedtime here, so I'll see you tomorrow. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Just for your information, we will probably need to trim down the plot section so it does not overweigh the real world material. Great work though, and Trimming is a process much easier then identifying the missing content. Sadads (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I find if it's all there, it's easier to compress. It needs enough detail to be able to show some of the criticisms hinted at in the current rather cryptic commentary, although some of the detail would appear in whatever review sources are used. Incidentally, I don't think it ever was B-class. Looking at the history, it was done with a semi-automated edit, which suggests it wasn't someone who had read the article in depth.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If I may jump in here - I don't know where you are located in the world, but if you need help with some of this post a message on my talk page. I am not sure how much you want to use "recent" images but a trip to Lake George to take images that would relate is not too far off and the Fort has a section about the book and related movies. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Becky Quick (sigh)

You may no longer care a year later, but User:KeltieMartinFan is up to the same old tricks re: the Quick article. (There's a sock puppet, User:Fourviz that may do damage, too.)

76.114.197.43 (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is a rhetorical question, but is it unusual at all to see someone -- months after "consensus" (or what I'd like to call fact, truth and/ or accuracy) -- refuse to concede the point and insist on editing, I.e. censoring, to his or her own whims? Wrapping it, of course, in the finest baroque pronouncements of Wiki canon?

The jousting can be sporting, but shortly becomes tedious and counterproductive. Especially when a fact itself is not in dispute. It's very puzzling, but I suppose a lot of worthwhile complexities result from chaos theory.  : ) -- 76.114.197.43 (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Victoria_Climbié.jpg

Just curious - where did you see that the image is from AP? All I could find was "Photo: PA" on the source page. If AP is distributing it than the file needs to be speedily deleted as a copyvio as images from AP aren't allowed, even under Fair Use. But I would need a link direct to AP, or a source that says it is from AP. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did I put AP. Sorry, brainfart. The image is copyright Press Association - I checked their library here. It's a collect photo - PA bought it rather than it being taken by a press photographer. Still, as I advised the uploader, he needs to ensure that the article contains sourced commentary about the photo.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes you changed my "PA" to "AP". It's ok. That is a good find, but the problem is the photo in your link is a cropped version of the one that was uploaded and the more "full" version I linked to at the image page. However not all is lost - here is the full one. As it was your find I will let tag it for deletion because, as you said, unless the image itself is discussed images from press agency's such as PA and AP are not generally allowed. Thanks - again, good find! (PS - I updated the image page with the links to the agency and the photos there) Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How does it fail the criteria? Is it because it needs commentary on the specific photo in question? That would be hard or impossible to dig up. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I said on your talkpage, because copyright is held by one of the Press photo agencies, the picture can only be used if the picture itself is discussed in the article. The picture is in the infobox - it is being used for identification. Look for another picture, and check the Press Association library to make sure it doesn't hold the copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for identifying the object as a date palm tree. I see it is under DR now at WikiCommons. I have no strong feelings here. I...just could not figure out what Byba meant. I guess it is a copyright violation of some kind and will vote delete sadly. But thank you for your kind help. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More experienced users

Greetings. You did some work on the article Thomas Jefferson and slavery & there was a problem with sources in July 2009. The problem persists. But there's far worse, and I think you understand the copyright problems pretty well. I have posted just one example of copyright infringement in the talk page that's on the article; I believe the user is... well he does so many edits it's hard to be certain, and I don't want to be incorrect. Someone else involved on the page & with more experience should check. Any asssistance would be appreciated. Ebanony (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for checking it out. There is one problem: "George Washington and slavery" has the same problem, and I've just posted a similar example sheet on the talk page; maybe it's too close, but there seem to be some problems. I don't want to take any action until others have seen it. Many thanks for clarifying. Ebanony (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see how the discussion I had with Sadads might have caused some confusion, and I'm sorry about that; I didn't know you knew him, but this isn't about his edits (he didn't do them), and I appreciate his input too. I know who made some of the edits, but not all, and I warned him on his talk page several times to fix it, but he still hasn't. It's precisely because of npov problems, some questionable phrases (I was picky) that someone else familiar with copyright & was neutral I thought should check it. Wasn't my intention to cause any problem with you and Sadads. Ebanony (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, silly how words and quick reading and writing can cause problems. Don't worry about it, life is good :) Actually, Ebanony we need a lot more picky people like you willing to Be bold and point out the problems with current content or just remove it or help other users paraphrase better! Keep it up, and I would stick my nose into this broader issue, but I am currently wrapped up in a few to many Wiki-things and Real life things,Sadads (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson and slavery

Can you resolve a dispute between Ebanony and myself who continues to make accusations of plagerism against myself? I made changes in the article, however, nothing seems to make a signifigant difference with Ebanony. The Thomas Jefferson and slavery article was an offshoot article I started from the Thomas Jefferson article. Ebanony continues to post on my talk page making various accusations. My attempts to correct the situation have not satisfied Ebanony. I can't work on the TJ and slavery article anymore since he continues to interrupt my talk page. Your opinion counts. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights in Iran

Alexander is deleting a section on stoning in Iran from this article alleging that it is a "human rights" issue and not a "women's rights" issue, with multiple reliable sources provided establishing it as a women's right issue as well as a human rights issue. Could you weigh in on the talk page please? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Razer photo clarification

Forgive me if I appear to be badgering you between here and WP:IMAGEHELP; I just appreciate that you know what you're talking about when it comes to image copyright. The article for Razer is now on the verge of being awarded GA status, and I'm keen to add the Flickr image I've mentioned before as it shows an angle which has otherwise been impossible to find in a free image. My question is: in order for the photographer to be able to publish a photo of Razer under CC-BY-SA, what form does permission from the robot's team need to take? Will I need a declaration form to send to OTRS as before when they supplied the image or, in this new circumstance, will an email saying "yeah Chris, that's OK by me" suffice?

Thank you again for all your time - apologies if I seem a little slow! CountdownCrispy 15:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would *think* the email would be OK. Upload the image and note that you have confirmed with Razer that they are also OK with the image being used. You'll need to send the email to OTRS on a ticket as before, and you can quote the previous ticket to show that the Razer guys are keen on this open-source stuff. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that for me. You are a 'legend' as they say in the playground! I've emailed the roboteer and, if you're interested, am happy to keep you abreast of how it goes? Best wishes, CountdownCrispy 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Let me know how it goes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IP removing Nazi flags

I've blocked the IP for 48h. I thought I'd explained the situation clearly enough yesterday, maybe they'll take notice now. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

File:2007 Sports Day.jpg

If you look at the link in the explanation, it notes that images are available for Wikimedia under the GFDL or under a PD release. I don't understand why you use this link to support your belief that there's no permission. And no complaints about your actions; you're not using rollback on me or telling me that you'll be happy to improve my woefully-ignorant understanding of copyright. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I could have been softer in my second sentence; sorry if I were harsh. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No definitely my bad - I didn't read it thoroughly enough. I have amended the file page to confirm that the image is released under GFLD on the website - that should put an end to it, although I bet some other person comes along and tags it with orphan --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw your comments on the discussion and wanted to clarify something for you here. All of the uploaders later uploads were speedied via I3/F3, you may not have noticed that. This was done because the Websites terms of use was explicitly cited. In cases such as these it is normal to speedy images that are marked with variations of "For Misplaced Pages Use only" or "with permission Only", the Misplaced Pages policy is clear in these regards. In the case of the earlier uploads such as this image: they did not specifically mention the "Misplaced Pages use only" like license at the source website, but all use "fair use of internet" or "used by permission", or a slight variation of it. Even without the link to the website these still are conflicting terms - remember the "self" tags use generic wording and in many cases an uploader will simply use a "self" tag and than add their own licensing terms elsewhere. In order to meet Wikipedias Image use policy for free images they must *not* be listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives as those images are unsuitable for Misplaced Pages and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use. As you pointed out the first part of the websites TOU/TOS is the general "everybody" license - You may not copy (other than a copy for personal use), modify, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, transfer, resell, or republish any of the Contents of this Website without the prior written consent... However the later part is what places these images into violations of Misplaced Pages policy - Content along with its images for re-use is permitted for WikiMedia under the GFDL or released into the public domain license. In other words these images are free "For Wikimedia use only" (And actually there is only explicit permission given for Wikimedia Commons - which would also be a violation of policy there as well). Misplaced Pages policy is based on, in part, the 2005 notice from Jimbo - Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted. I3/F3 expanded on that saying image (media) that are "for non-commercial use only" (including non-commercial Creative Commons licenses), "no derivative use", "for Misplaced Pages use only" or "used with permission" may be deleted.... Your tag was correct. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Soundvisions, I saw that. However, the webmaster released the content under GNFL and as PD. PD is one thing - it can't be PD for Misplaced Pages use only or anything like that. My interpretation was that the PD statement together with the GNFL release would override any other statement in the declaration.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. That is why it is a conflicted license. It appears that the uploader was simply choosing a "free" license so they could upload an image and than stated the image was fair use or used with permission depending on the image. In January text was questioned in an article and the updated TOU/TOS was added based on the talk page suggestion, and the later images were upped linking to that. And, as I said, all of those image were speedied because of it. So, in direct answer to your comment if an image is truly released into PD than all copyright is released on it. However clearly that is not the case with any of this users uploads. They used a PD tag on all of the image uploads, and than also sated the image was used with permission or used via Fair use. Two early responses on some images has this response: "Image was taken from the online edition of the news paper, its released to the public by the news paper company for fair use." One has to look at all the uploads made by the user - that is the only reason I uncovered all of these. It is a pattern, not a simple "Oops, I made a mistake with this one image." That unclear understanding of PD extends to the website as well - nowhere does it state that everyhting is available to everyone as PD or even GFDL - the exact wording states that only if you want to use if on Wikimedia than you can can, provided it is "under the GFDL or released into the public domain license" And those two license are not the same either. Look at the Photo Gallery and click on images - they all state "Copyright © 2000 Vidura College - Colombo. All rights reserved" Right now there are, in reality, several issues with these images. I guess the best "in a nutshell" way to look at it is that when an uploader used a "self" license for everything and than manually says some of the images are from newspapers, some are from websites, same are used with permission, some are used as fair use, the source website says "All rights reserved" and "For personal use only" than chances are the "I, the copyright holder..." generic wording in a license tag is not accurate at all. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll bow to your greater experience on that. After years in local government, I've found I'm good at reading copyright legislation and caselaw and applying it (I was with the revenue department in the days of the Poll Tax, the most complex piece of bloody legislation ever delivered), but I haven't got the background yet for how it is applied (mind, I'll bet Bradford v Anderson means nothing to you (very important poll tax case), so we're probably quits on that :) :). Anyway, I'd wait a week and tag it for deletion as orphaned. Hopefully Schuminweb will deal with it, he's quite keen to clear out orphan images.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Elen of the Roads. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — e. ripley\ 20:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem. Honestly I don't see anything to be upset at you about but maybe I'm missing something. — e. ripley\ 21:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

• On a separate matter, as you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work with Gavin

		The Guidance Barnstar
		He's a difficult case with great upside potential. Your mentoring is appreciated. Mike Cline (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Language questions

Since you offered to help, I will ask you a few questions, I hope you don't mind.

1. Here, do you think "is fitting out" is OK in the following sentence? Or should it be "is being fitted out"?

The latest nuclear submarine produced at the shipyard is the nuclear powered attack submarine Severodvinsk, which was launched in 2010 and is currently fitting out

2. Here, I'm looking for a better way to say "is seen as too expensive". I think it doesn't sound good because "see" is too concrete. "Has been identified as too expensive" is not good either, because "identified" is too specific. I cannot think of a good alternative.

3. Here, I'm looking for a better way to say stuff like "growth of production for military products". I'm not sure which of the following words is a good synonyme for "military products": weapons, arms, or armaments. For example, a transport helicopter is not really "a weapon", but still a military product. Would it be OK to use "arms" in place of the general expression "military products" or "defense industry products"?

4. I'm not entirely sure what the word "procurement" means, although I've read the wiktionary entry. I understand it as follow: a company produces weapons, but when the state buys new weapons, then it "procures" them. But what exactly does "Russian defense procurement" mean? Does it mean the total production of weapons in the country or just the government's weapons purchases?

Thanks a lot for your time. Offliner (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, delighted to help.

1. The UK English expression would be 'is being fitted out', as we tend to prefer reflexive tenses.

2. 'is seen as too expensive' doesn't really mean the same as 'is identified as too expensive", so I agree with you there. 'Is perceived as too expensive' or 'is regarded as too expensive' would be much better.

3. 'Armaments' is the correct alternative, I would say. 'Growth in production of armaments' or 'growth in military production' would both do.

4. 'Procurement' means to obtain something. 'Procure' can be used in a domestic setting, especially if the object of the procurement is a bit odd - 'she went to the butcher to procure a pig's head' or if method is by some other means than retail purchase - 'he traded several dahlias with his neighbour in order to procure a horseradish root.'

In a business sense, 'procurement' refers to the whole process of obtaining goods and services. It may require a 'specification', describing the goods or services required, a 'tender' submitted by companies who wish to supply, a 'selection process' where a supplier is chosen, and a 'contract' with the supplying company, which will include such things as quantity, price, timescale, after-sales service, penalties for failure to supply, guarantees or warranties. (I procure goods for my company - the largest procurement I did was for £250,000).

So when your source talks of 'Russian defence procurement', it is referring to all the goods and services which have been bought/contracted for by the Russian government as part of its defence spending. This will include spending on military hardware (rockets, helicopters etc), military computer systems (eg fire control systems), but may also include spending on laptops, printer paper, toilet paper, uniforms, food, vodka (well, they are Russians), cleaning staff, the phone contract, the contract with their internet service provider etc etc. If it only means spending on military hardware, the source should make this clear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! This is exactly what I needed. Offliner (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about this: is correct to say "M. E. Sharpe are an academic publisher"? I've seen "are" used with football teams in England, but not with companies. I think other WP articles about companies (even about British companies) always use "is" instead of "are", but football team articles like this use "are". Offliner (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, both can be used, it's a kind of custom and practice thing in the UK. So "F.Warne & Co" is a publishing firm or 'is a publisher' (singular). However, more colloquially F.Warne & Co can also be abbreviated to Warne's (as in Warne's firm of publishers I presume), giving 'Warne's are publishing my book'. Confusingly, 'Warne are publishing my book' can also legitimately be used. Whether the extra 's' is added seems to depend on whether the name of the firm is the name of the founder - Blackwell's always has it, Penguin never does, because the name was made up by someone in Pearson Longman (Longman though always used to be referred to as Longman's). So one should say 'Penguin Books Ltd is the UK division of Penguin Group'.

I suppose it's a kind of shibboleth - only the locals get it right. Football teams are always plural - conceptually, the team is the 11 players, not the business, so it is 'Manchester United are...' even when obviously talking about the business (...are raising capital to build a new stand) and not the guys on the pitch (Manchester United are playing terribly this season).

Firms of partners, such as lawyers, should properly be refered to in the plural, so 'George Allen & Unwin' are a publishing firm, or 'are publishers' (plural); 'Sue, Grabbit & Run are a firm of solicitors in Glasgow' ; 'Hobson and Holland are reliable roofing contractors'. Going back to M E Sharpe, I'd tend towards 'is', because there is only one name, so 'M E Sharpe is an academic publisher'; but it is likely that in colloquial English one would say 'Sharpe's are academic publishers'.

Clear as mud, I'm sure.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Convention is that companies/organizational entities are plural in British English and singular in American English, so one should follow the convention for the rest of the article, e.g. "George Allen & Unwin are planning to publish..." = British, "George Allen & Unwin is planning to publish..." = American. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hear both versions used these days in British English, wasn't aware that the singular form is the norm in the US. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Gavin and Lists

ER - As you can see, List policy is one area where I believe Gavin is trying impose what he thinks policy ought to say and not what it really says or how current policy is practiced. There is pretty strong consensus against him in terms of the list policy he wants to impose but he refuses to see that. When we point out that the current 57K+ lists in WP have been created under current guidelines and policies and that his view of what policy ought to be would render 99% of those lists in violation of policy, he refuses to understand or care about the impact. It is this intractability that has caused so much turmoil. Please press him on the need to understand consensus on current policy and not to interpret that policy in the way he wants the WP list world to be. Again, thanks for your help with Gavin.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. I have a little sympathy - some lists are just accumulations of cruft, usually because the nature of the list wasn't defined well enough to start with, and Milhist did have a problem with some joker wanting to include anything that was called "War on..." in a tabloid headline. Lists need to be clearly scoped, but that's not the same as what Gavin is saying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a lot of poor lists created (just like poor articles) because editors do not understand or follow policy. But that is not a reason for decimating 57K+ good lists by advocating draconian policy or gross misapplication of existing policy. Bad lists should be deleted or improved according to the consensus of existing policy. That's what Gavin needs to learn. Thanks. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD on Shakespeare doubters

The list has been transformed into an article about the Declaration. Can i suggest you take a look and see if you'd want to withdraw your AFD? A Radish for Boris (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Who made the change I wonder? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism accusations

Ebanony continues to make plagerism accusations. He currently is claiming Rjensen is making plagiarism links on George Washington. Ebanony has rarely made any contributions to articles and seems to just criticize rather then make the article better. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me take a look. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for getting involved in the Gavin issue

ER - Sorry for weighing in on the Gavin Behavioral issues. He's just got a disruptive way of sucking us into these useless debates. In no way do I think a statement saying that I or we disagree with his position is a personal attack, but I guess as long as he feels that way, we should lay off and let you and KWW do your magic. You were right to call a stop to the bickering. Good Luck. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why people do it, but it was turning into a cat fight, and Bus Stop turning up didn't help either. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Doodle Jump

I declined because I didn't understand the explanation of why they were copyvios, so they weren't blatant in my eyes. Since you've given a detailed explanation, I now understand, so I've deleted all three of them. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your advice please

As regards People's Commissariat for Finance you placed the following message:

If he persists in copying the text of one article into another to create the second article, without proper accreditation, he will be blocked from editing. If he had different content for the two articles that showed that they were different entities - then there would not have been a problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is my problem: In July 2008 I created a page entitled "Narkomfin" (See the creation page of Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union)). In December 2008 User:DonaldDuck moved the page to "People's Commissariat of Finance". Fair enough I thought. I made a number of other edits in 2009. Then in June 2010 User:Trust Is All You Need moved the page to "Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union)". I edited a completely different page, and because the Soviet Union did not exist at the time of the foundation of the "People's Commissariat of Finance" it is inappropriate to put amalgamate the two pages. I wish to return my edits to the correct page and would certainly like to see the proper edit history restored as well before User:Trust Is All You Need introduced all the confusion. At the moment the edit record makes me look stupid, if not downright deceitful. As things stand my contribution is being misrepresented and i wish to correct this. Presumably you would have no issue if I persist in moving my own edits back onto the correct page, as they will still be properly accredited. But I am not sure this adequately fixes the problem.Harrypotter (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue was copypasting without accreditation, which breaches the licence by which copy is released to Misplaced Pages. If you say in the paste article "copied from X article" that's sufficient. As to the rest, you have some good advice on your talkpage about getting consensus if you wish to undo TIAYN's moves of the articles, or split them into two. If there is consensus for a split, an admin will be able to help with the history problem. I recommend against edit warring to move "your" content (which is of course not yours, as you have released it for other editors to do what they like with) without gaining consensus, as this is unlikely to end well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

They are the same freaking articles, If you really want to create an article for the People's Commissariat for Finance of the RSFSR than create an article for the People's Commissariat for the RSFSR.. okay? Is it that hard? You can't have two articles on two different topics, It is gonna confuse the reader. --TIAYN (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from bringing your content dispute onto my talkpage. I have no opinion as to whether there should be one, two or no articles on the subject. My advice is strictly on how to discuss and obtain consensus for any action.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your advice.Harrypotter (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RFA?

I been seeing you alot lately in AN/I, etc, and checking your contributions you do some adminstative work already, are you interested in a request for adminship. Thanks Secret 22:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very kind thought, but I'm not convinced anyone would !vote for me. I don't create loads of FAs (never created an article as far as I can recall), which would mean instant opposes from many of those who take an interest in such things. I actually think it takes a different skillset - particularly when it involves sorting out edit wars, non-communicative editors, pov pushers etc - but what do I know. I only ran the complaints department for a city for ten years :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

All the recent candidates who passed didn't have a load of FAs, and there were several with plenty of FAs who failed RFA, your name is known in AN/I and copyrights, and you did do some article work. You should pass. Secret 23:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you can find a seconder (I know technically it doesn't need one, but...), I'll be very surprised give it serious consideration. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, if you are serious, I would be honored to be your second... I just came here because I just noticed that Secret had mentioned your name at WT:RFA... you are a person who I thought for sure was an admin. I would have zero problem nominating you because, in my opinion, the EotR that is not an admin would not be too different from the EotR that is an admin. E.g. you act like one and have people defer to you as if you already were... they seek your advice and input and when you comment on subjects you get the respect of a person who has seen the ropes and is able to act in an adminly manner. That's what ultimately matters (and would be the premise of a co-nom.)---Balloonman 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

^That. I need both hands to count the times I've been into your user rights log because (even though I vaguely remembered checking), I think I must be confused and that you're an admin. (Oh, and one time I was actually there to flip a switch, but who's counting?) I passed RFA this May with no more than a single FL to my credit. No ten FA's, not even one. (Not even once having sulled the carpet over at FAC). I mean, the stars are nice and all, but they're neither necessary or sufficient to pass RFA. Courcelles 06:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support: "I thought they were already an admin." Also per this and other past-interactions: editor is level-headed and has massive reserves of good-faith, helpfulness and clue. TFOWR 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'd vote for you. Haploidavey (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit, I did have a concern that no bugger would vote for me (oh G-d! Not that madwoman!). If you guys are serious, I suppose I could give it a shot. Tell you what, I'll do the answers to the questions on the template, you can tell me if they make any sense.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

dreary question

Amusingly (in light of the preceding section), I've come here, O font of procedural knowledge, to ask you a question. (Can I put a big campaign sign in my virtual yard? I'm sure that's against the rules.) Anyway.

I opened an SPI at 20:04, 17 October. The suspected user has responded, but there's been nothing from any outside party. Could you give me some sense of the timeframe for these things? Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Officially no... you cannot "canvass" votes by putting virtual signs out. But it happens all the time by people going to other people's pages and posting messages "About your !vote/comment in the {blank} RfA/AFD/XFD/RFC/Village Pump." It's one of the reasons why people are cynical about the rules related to Canvassing. Canvass still happens, people just have figured out how to work the letters not the spirit of the guideline. as for the SPI question... I'll leave that to Elen.---Balloonman 14:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The rules against canvassing always seem fishy to me. Rather like the "civility" rules. They seem to keep people from functioning in normally social or political ways, and encourage passive-aggressive behavior and all sorts of soul-destroying tactics, as you point out. (And surely the canvassing chart is meant to be a satire?) Both "rules" require me to accept restrictions on freedoms of speech and association that I would rebel against IRL. There's a difference between calling someone a name and saying "you can't possibly believe that load of rubbish." The former is ad hominem, the latter not. Not being allowed to post a message on the talk pages of editors I respect saying "Hey, here's an admin candidate whose wisdom I praise" shows what a bizarre "community" this is, much more akin to a monastic order than a Republic of Letters.Cynwolfe (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

) :) Re SPI - I have created userpages for User:Aldrasto, User:Aldrasto11 and User:Zanzan1. I have no idea why he couldn't do same, took me all of 30 seconds although he may not care for the results. If he would replace those templates with a message about legitimate socks, and stop editing logged out, this would solve one problem at a stroke. As it is, SPI cases do tend to hang about a bit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re canvassing - you can alert other users to the presence of an RfA/AfD or whatever TlA is on today. The idea is that once there, they will see your position on the discussion. It's kind of logical. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)