Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:48, 21 December 2011

We want structures that serve people, not people serving structures. — Anonyme, mai '68

Welcome to my Meet-the-Pluie session - or more commonly, my talk page. A list of talk page archives is available.

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

Talkback

Calvin • 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

again Calvin • 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And again.Calvin • 00:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

you know the drill. Calvin • 00:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change I made on the free will page, because of the rules, but please note it makes no sense now! It already mentions soul in the sentence I put in, and then you introduce soul in the next sentence as if hasn't been mentioned. Please undo it again.--Syamsu (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Special:Contributions/NoNatalina Very suspicious first edit and username. I'm watching the editor, but you may want to request a forced username change if you feel it's bordering on harassment. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Money No Enough and Xiaxue on peer review

Hello, Dave1185, and thanks for all your contributions to Singapore-related articles! You are invited to comment at Money No Enough's peer review and Xiaxue's peer review. I rewrote both articles and am aiming for both to attain GA status. Thank you. 谢谢. Terima kasih. Arigato. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is La goutte de pluie's personal agenda. Thank you. Salvio 21:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your signature

Please consider adapting your signature so that it includes your user-name, in accord with the behavioural guideline, Misplaced Pages:Signatures - specifically that Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname are strongly discouraged. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  12:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had this signature for 6 years (with different colours) and no one ever strongly objected...besides, the names are related. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a reasonable request in line with long-standing (and current) Misplaced Pages guidelines, so I would strongly second the request. At the very least, please get rid of the excessive formatting in your sig. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I third it. Just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't mean that it's right. As Strange Passerby says, it's a reasonable request and within guidelines. Worm · (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always had a weakness for literary signatures, I'm afraid; people can easily see the status bar. I would readily accept most other advice, but I do feel quite strongly about my signature! elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Its fine if you keep that signature, but may you put your username at the end just to say thats its you. I fourth the request and its reasonable. ~~Ebe123~~ _Contribs 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

May I say that not all browsers have status bars, the computer that I am currently using doesn't have one.

People, people. This is a simple request and user:La goutte de pluie should decide. ~~Ebe123~~ _Contribs 14:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But many cannot. A screen reader will simply read out your signature as it stands, so less fortunate people will have no idea who made the comment. Rennell435 (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I eleventh this polite request. It would be helpful if you changed your signature to be similar to your username. - Metal.lunchbox (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is similar is the gender (La and Elle). ~~Ebe123~~ _Contribs 17:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how "Elle" connects with "La goutte de pluie" ... please change your signature, or your username. Gerardw (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the French language, and "Elle" is a pronoun that is a short form for "la goutte de pluie" (see Romance language grammar).

As this is the English Misplaced Pages it's not reasonable to expect the majority of readers to connect "Elle" with "La goutte de pluie" Gerardw (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that so? I thought La goutte de pluie roughly translated as "raindrop" whilst Elle translates to "her". Though I think Gerard's point is more important here. Worm · (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No in this case it can be read "and she lived happily ever after", perhaps capriciously, like a raindrop. I wasn't aware that English was a requirement for signatures. A lot of people sign in Chinese. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 15:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see that translation :) Worm · (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Tony Tan Keng Yam

• - http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/07/28/shocking-tony-tans-son-served-ns-as-a-scientist-and-not-a-combat-fit-mo/ -

This editorial and webaddress is not a reliable source in a BLP at wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it was one of the allegations that TodayOnline was referring to, and can be cited as such. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't add it again. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I reinstated my edits except for the addition of that reference. I would appreciate if you raised it on the talk page. There is no blanket ban on using TR as a reference; I think here it is quite pertinent to cite it (explicitly as coming from Temasek Review, as Zhanzhao said, as we would cite activist orgs like MoveOn.org, Amnesty International and the like) in conjunction with the other sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't add it again. You need to start discussing your edits more on talk pages. Better still is if you just stop editing in your conflicted topic area. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not know my revision there (except for the TR thing, which I still thought reasonable) would be controversial. The article has a suspicious edit history and at least one employee has already been confirmed to be an employee in Tony Tan's office. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 21:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Please don't do again what you did today on User talk:202.156.13.11. You were edit-warring, and in fact breaking 3RR, about a stale notice which (1) the blocked editor had removed from their own talkpage, which is their right, (2) which had no objective function any longer anyway (because the link to the current block list is no longer showing what you meant it to show last week). Moreover, it should have been clear to you by now from the discussion at ANI that you are an involved administrator in this affair. You should not have done that block last week in the first place; so you should of course also not compound your mistake now by raising a fuss about asserting your admin authority with regard to this notice. Finally, you did very wrong by semi-protecting the IP's talkpage. This IP was blocked this time in order to stop him from harassing you, so you are directly a party in this issue; by semiprotecting the page you have stopped him from trying to appeal his block. That's about as clear an example of an illegitimate involved admin action as I can think of.

I'm trying my best to keep the disruption from these IP socks in check. You're not helping things by giving them ammunition for further complaints like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. note that I have undone the protection, and also made a note of this at ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! --Marcofran (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

Block evasion by 24.163.39.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

You recently blocked this user for 2 weeks, but he is already using another IP address, 174.99.120.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Yworo (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/La goutte de pluie

The topic ban proposal has been closed as no consensus, while the 1RR+semiprotection has passed. As of right now the passed proposal does not extend to Singapore presidential election, 2011, Tony Tan Keng Yam, Tan Jee Say, Tan Kin Lian or Tan Cheng Bock; if I were you I would not make any remotely controversial edits or reverts at those articles otherwise the sanctions may have to be extended. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

A RFC/U case involving you has been opened OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi, you should know that only asking another editor who is very likely to have the same opinion as you to give an opinion in an AfD which you initiated can be construed as canvassing, which is not allowed. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 15:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You are also reminded that it is a requirement to notify the article creator if you nominate an article for AFD. Considering you complained the last time one of your images was nominated at FFD and you were not notified, this omission is pretty glaring. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all canvassing -- I only messaged two people, and I simply asked for your opinions — since you are familiar with issues like these, that's all. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's actually not at all true that there is a requirement to notify the article creator if you bring an article to AfD. WP:AFD states, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." In many cases it's better if you don't notify someone, for example, if the article's creator hasn't edited Misplaced Pages in years, or if they are indefinitely blocked. I'd say I probably notify the creator of an article maybe 75% of the time, and again that depends on whether or not they're an active editor. Sometimes (fairly often actually) a person will register an account, create an article, and never edit anything again. -- Atama頭 23:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Delayed Responses

Since I have been away for the last two weeks I'm just dropping you a note to let you know I have now responded to your comment on my talk page - in case you have stopped watching for the reply. Spartaz 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Recall - second request

headers

Please don't mnake personal attacking headers with users names in. Off2riorob (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Alsp - don't go looking for support or looking for someone to revert for you. diff - Off2riorob (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly within the means of policy to ask for assistance when dealing with a problematic editor. It is even encouraged as an alternative to edit warring. Your inclination to chill discussion is not appreciated, and furthermore, your retitling was procedurally inappropriate even if it could be justified. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 04:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Could you please force the IP user to use discussion

I understand your situation, and I have many of the Singaporean politics-related pages on my watchlist to look out for trolling edits. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 06:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

SA

I don't think you want to touch that bio as long as you live in the US . FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not intimidated. My school has pretty impressive (and free) legal aid and has one of the top 14 law schools in the US. Furthermore, issues like unchilled speech and the marketplace of ideas are exactly the kind of tradition my school's founder champions. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Eugenics in Singapore

On 27 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eugenics in Singapore, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Singapore paid uneducated women to get sterilised as part of its Stop at Two campaign? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Eugenics in Singapore.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

your removal

Hi, I appreciate your being understanding and your decency and reconsidered position by removing that report. Please don't think I am against you in any way. I realize we have had a very bumpy road but I hope it gets smoother and I will work when I can to attempt to repair and improve our relations. I will also keep out of editing Singapore articles as I do know very little about the sector - I also have noticed and agree that you are resisting multiple COI editors in that sector. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sterilization (medicine) --> Sterilisation (medicine)_Sterilisation_(medicine)-2011-08-28T00:19:00.000Z">

Just in case you're not aware of the policy ... Your recent recent rename and corresponding edit of Sterilization (medicine) may not be a good idea, as it appears to be a breach of MOS:RETAIN "When a variety of English has become established in an article, it should be maintained", which is a subset of MOS:ENGVAR "The English Misplaced Pages prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." Please discuss such changes on the talk page before making them. Thank-you Mitch Ames (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)_Sterilisation_(medicine)"> _Sterilisation_(medicine)">

Question on treating City Harvest church as McDonald-religion (and its incorrect citation)

Hey La goutte de, pls read the thread named Question on treating City Harvest church as McDonald-religion (and its incorrect citation) at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:City_Harvest_Church#Question_on_treating_City_Harvest_church_as_McDonald-religion_.28and_its_incorrect_citation.29 Hope to seek your view. Thanks.

The citation is quite correct from my end. Which country do you live in -- does something weird go on there which would cause you render Google Books incorrectly? elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 11:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

For commerical books, there is a limitation in Google Books. It does not allow commercial books to be read free for all. The specific page that you indicated on CHC talk page is found out to be the very first page of the cited chapter. Does your country allow anyone to read these books free for all? Btw, pls see my reply on CHC talk page. Thks. Kimberry352 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You were wrong about something

This edit is outrageous and not in line with the standard of ethics and behavior that I expect from admins.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That behaviour was motivated by principle; I don't even have any connection to the subject. Articles heavily edited by those with COI often introduce a certain bias into it that is not removed even when the blatant promotionalism is -- they are likely to whitewash their criticisms and so forth. I would like to inquire why you think it's outrageous, if it's a common outcome of enforcing WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY? elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not acceptable in any way for us to add negative information to a biography in order to punish people for anything. That's ridiculous, and deeply unprincipled.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

for ur info

TR (Temasek Review) and TOC (The Online Citizens) are social-political websites that have no official rooms for vertification because they are deemed as social-political blogs. Blogs are not used as reliable source. Besides, the original research including academic research should not treated lightly as reliable sources. We do not know what will happen one day before all the premises are true but the conclusion is fallible. Kimberry352 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're referring to the TOC/TR? City Harvest Church has become prominent enough to be the focus of an academic case study by external, international researchers -- this is not original research, seeing as CHC has already been covered in the news. You can't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a reason to remove a perfectly respectable source from a perfectly respectable journal, you should find a source that responds to the academic source I am citing. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 19:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

as for chc, is the cited chapter from the journal? I thought it was from academic research comprising different authors in one book. Have you read the entire chapter you referred to me? I would like to see it. Btw I mention TR and TOC cannot be used as reliable source since I realize you worked with biographies especially from those people in Singapore referring to those social-political blogs. Kimberry352 (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This has no connection to CHC, and btw, I intend to make a more complete proposal at WP:RS/N later. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Elle, you misunderstand me. There are two separate topics. One is about TR/TOC websites which you used as sources to refer to Singaporean politicians last time based on your edit history. Other is about the academic research in which you cherry pick the quotation for CHC despite that this research is a case study for specialization instead of generalization. Kimberry352 (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The case study uses CHC as an example of a greater trend. It focuses on CHC but it also discusses megachurches in general. The TR/TOC thing is a different issue to be solved later. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 04:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

well, actually using case studies as examples is not relatively safe...but since you choose to defend your action for the cited quotation despite it is a part of the case study in the original research, I shall respect your action. But I would like to seek your view on moving the cited quotation from the main summary to the controversy section. See reason at ] Kimberry352 (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary as I have already used the source elsewhere in the article. Per WP:LEAD, what's in the lead should summarise the rest of the article. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 05:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

before you applied the neutral style of language to write the sentences for the cited quotation, have you checked the entire chapter starting with the beginning page till the ending page?Kimberry352 (talk) 05:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Elle, pls see ] ] for discussion on the quotation from the original academic research you cited in CHC wiki entry. Kimberry352 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't exist. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 02:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

my apology for the wrong URL. The correct one is besides the crossed out word above.

Question on cited quotation in the summary

There is no substance about the link between City Harvest Church and McDonald/Disney church in the body of Wiki entry despite the brief description about it is in the main summary. Suppose that the summary is for summarizing the elements from the body of the Wiki entry. Thus, I wonder if you have information from the whole cited chapter of the academic research book, then you should describe the common way both CHC and McDonald/Disney church do in the body of Wiki entry (despite it is from original research). But why didn't you do that except just for the main summary? According to manual of style that you referred to me, I feel as if you tried to rebut me with the links. What more matters is the lack of the McDonald/Disney church's relationship with CHC in the body of Wiki entry. I think it should be ideal to shift the cited quotation about the relationship between CHC and McDonald/Disney religion from the main summary to the Controversy section under the body of the Wiki entry. Then you can elaborate this with the information from the full chapter (I think you never read the entire chapter?? If I am wrong, pls correct me) Kimberry352 (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thread about Mugginsx at BLPN

Hello. The other day you opened a thread at WP:BLPN#Reliable sources, not the "truth" about an editor called Mugginsx (talk · contribs). Mugginsx has contacted me and professed irratation about that thread because it seems quite unsubstantiated – there are indeed no links or anything about what situation or what actions of his you were referring to, and he claims he has no idea what you were talking about. This seems all quite strange. Can you please clarify what you meant, and either substantiate the complaint with some actionable diffs or perhaps retract it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been asked three times once by two editors and once by an administrator to explain your remarks to me. Please respond. Mugginsx (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm busy. But for the record, it refers to your remarks in the section above (I meant to create a subsection not a full one). You can't rule out reliable sources based on your own original research or your subjective sense of morality or truth. You also can't rule out a perfectly good citation from a perfectly good source just because that source includes information that you somehow subjectively think is slanderous when that material isn't even used in the article. As I said, reliable sources, not WP:TRUTH. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know you are busy and I have commented there as well as you probably know. You have still not shown where I made any remarks about blacklisting reliable sources. You can add as many words in a paragraph that you want. That is still not an answer. I never made those remarks and would like it retracted or taken off the page where it does not belong anyway. Mugginsx (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a remark on your debate above on that page, where the evidence is self-evident. If you pursue an aggressive campaign, expect an aggressive response. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How convenient -- the death of Caylee Antony section that you participated in (that I was referring to in my comment) is now gone -- of course my section looks weird without any context. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 19:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I will check it out but I know I never made that statement. You stated "I said it" but what you should have said is that this was your interpretation of what I actually said. That is why it is dishonest as presently stated. As for the archiving - don't look at me. I didn't initate the discussion and of course I did not archive it. It was not randomly archived. It is automatic. Some time passed between comments. Did'nt you notice it was archived. You can still access it. How weird indeed, me havin to tell you this.

OK, here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive130#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS I NEVER SAID THOSE WORDS. I think you are confusing me with the editor who initiated the board. Anyway, I never said it or anything like it and I can prove it. Now it is up to you to retract it or edit it to name whatever editor you see saying it. Mugginsx (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am unsympathetic. You said, and I quote, "We are talking about a lie" -- i.e. refuting a reliable source in a news article -- and blacklisting it -- simply because you have some original research that argues one of the sources has defamatory information, information we don't even use, and then using the clearly not very reliable website caseyanthonyisinnocent. I will be restoring the source as necessary. You are willing to blacklist references to the Orlando Sentinel and other news sites for some partisan website. Your behaviour is quite ridiculous; and furthermore I am not moved by your attempts to drop bombs like your declaration of being a paralegal or having cancer. CarolMoore called your position absurd. I agree with her. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Also it doesn't matter that a reference ends up talking about the police officer rather than primarily the death of Caylee Anthony. That's OK -- while this would be a COATRACK issue for an article, it is not article space. It is a reference. It is also a reasonably reliable reference. You can use references to source points about a topic that the reference doesn't primarily discuss. Again, reliable sources, not your subjective perception of the WP:TRUTH. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 00:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue was mediated by an expert. We came to an agreement. I am sorry that you did not understand the discussion but it hardly matters now. What you think is immaterial. CarolMooredc does not claim having legal experience in her own biography or in any of her internet blogs or websites. Further, she deleted that comment after she made it on the Death of Caylee Anthony Talk page as it was obvious by her edits, comments, and questions that she, in fact, has no legal experience. I resurrected the comment to make a point. Another point that is immaterial to the false comments you made about me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources.2C_not_the_.22truth.22 and your continued refusal to retract. Mugginsx (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not retracting anything. You seem to think that being a paralegal will give you some advantage in a dispute. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Not at all. I am using only Misplaced Pages guidelines here and appealing to your sense of honor. I have never mentioned that to you in any discussion we have had and besides, I am retired. Mugginsx (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

La goutte is entitled to her opinion, but her noticeboard complaint has remained unactionable, because it was unsubstantiated, so I've closed it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration

Your request for arbitation has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to read some of the arbitrators' comments concerning resolution of this dispute. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Kudu 

Talkback

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A very simple question

A very simple question, I just need a yes or no answer, which will help us move along in the dispute resolution process.

As RFC findings are non-binding, this is totally your prerogative, and you can decline to do so.

Are you willing to abide by the proposed resolutions that have consensus at the RFC/U, including but not limited to the BLP topic ban?

Remember, simple question, simple answer. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to cooperate with the community on many other measures, but I would not voluntarily commit to such a ban, especially because people calling for it have not raised the issues on the appropriate talk pages, nor have they contributed anything in the fight against COI. In every step of the way I have solicited the input of others to help edit problematic articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. Unfortunately I see that the RfC/U is unlikely to solve anything to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to consider many other remedies; but I have done extensive work into researching sources and finding new books and new scholars; when I have the time, I plan on a very massive expansion on the area related to the history of Singapore (using the sources listed at Talk:Singapore by User:Brythain). My editing is a source-based approach; I only include what the sources tell me. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 03:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid the choice is not yours to make. There is clearly community consensus here, and therefore you need to accept that you will soon be no longer allowed to edit BLPs at all. Your position is simply wrong, and in particular, your position that we should punish people for COI editing by adding negative information to their biographies shocks the conscience. Let me repeat this part again: this choice is not yours to make. I recommend that you accept the situation gracefully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That is simply the intent motivating certain edits; could you point out which edits have been problematic? By punishment I never meant adding purely negative information -- merely all sorts of information, good and bad (this establishes context). However, there is a tendency on BLPs to filter out negative information and keep positive information; the result is a systemic bias towards a certain type of promotionalism in articles (as well as discussing the subject in an episodic, recentic, rather incoherent manner). On that AFD !vote, I meant that if that either the positive information was to be removed (the article deleted) as a correction against COI, or reliably-sourced negative information added back in (for balance). I do not at all, support a wanton and reckless policy of punishing COI, which you seem to have perceived. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 03:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your ongoing defense of the remark is problematic. I'm afraid you haven't persuaded many people that you will be doing the right thing. I think you should consider yourself topic banned from editing BLPs until such time that you make an appropriate retraction of that remark and hold a successful RfC to overturn the topic ban.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I always thought editing behaviour, not the opinions I hold (so long as I express them civilly) governed such sanctions. The RFC hasn't been edited by a reliable sample of the community, and includes people I chose to come into conflict with because of their own problematic behaviour. For example, User:Mugginsx continues to make legalistic threats and favours suppressing citations form news sites by showing "evidence" from fringe sources why such citations would be a "lie". At the RFC, few have actually presented evidence of BLP-editing behaviour. When editors say things like "I think you have some very big problems which should prevent you from ever editing on Misplaced Pages again. I don't know what exactly they are, but I know they are there" -- i.e. calling me out on a vibe rather than any actual evidence -- I am not convinced that consensus has been established (after all, consensus is not a vote, it is about presenting arguments). elle _{vécut heureuse} (be

free) 16:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Singapore

Be Free, I did not see any citations in either article (Demographics of Singapore or the post-World War II baby boom article) that you refer to as "our article" that would confirm those statistics... In fact both articles are seriously lacking in verifiable research... Regards. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• I believe I should have imported those citations, but check out Population control in Singapore. In the meanwhile, the ref for the US birth rate peaking in 1957 is indeed, found in that article. (I'm in class and have no time to link.) elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• I checked both articles and saw nothing, but of the references that are in there, they are very shaky... Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• From the lead -- "birth rates in the United States started to decline in 1957". The statistics in Population control in Singapore are supported by a diverse amount of studies, including studies from the Library of Congress and academic sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, I do see the supported references in the Population control in Singapore article. I guess Asia has different standards for what is considered authoritative or acceptable by an author than the West.Stevenmitchell (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you explicitly point out what is wrong with those sources? There are many more (simply Google Scholar "Singapore + Eugenics" or "Singapore + natalism" or "Singapore + Stop at Two") but I haven't had time to add them. Furthermore, I added more potential refs in the talk page. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ (+)
_Contribs 19:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Punishment" of COI

LGDP, you've been around long enough to know that consensus can change. Since mentioning "punishment" in the past month, has anyone agreed with you that "punishment" is the right way to go? I haven't seen any, but have seen a lot of backlash about it. You are free to start an RfC, but I think it's very clear that the community does not agree with the stance. Of course, you're welcome to hold the opinion that it should be punished, but if you are actively acting upon it, I think a BLP topic ban might be the best idea. If on the other hand you could make some sort of statement which confirms that you understand (pending an RfC) that the "punishment of COI" is not the current community stance, I'd be happy to oppose it. Worm · (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, the thing that COI motivates is speed and rapidity in editing, and perhaps "naming and shaming" on article talk pages. (Among other, non-article-space measures -- perhaps CheckUser or the press.) Compared to the sample at the United States Congress RFC, the sample isn't very big, and most of the people who have commented on that thread appear to have been involved via other disputes. Spotting bad-faith COI does not affect the ultimate "thermodynamic" outcome of an article, merely to neutralise it more rapidly than I would any other article. Have you seen the COI editors I have dealt with? That is the kind of COI I am talking about. If anyone thinks my corrections are excessive, I ask them to use the talk pages or even be bold in fixing it! On occasion -- this did not occur in 2006 -- COI agents now smarter and more combative come back to revert the changes without explanation (rather than build or trim on top of the changes), and I am forced towards the BRD cycle. However, IP editors often skip the "discuss" step, or simply make one-liner personal attacks or edit summaries. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 09:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Punishing COI is an intention, but in my actual edits I always strive to be neutral and verifiable. If editors with COI are allowed to edit Misplaced Pages as long as they edit neutrally, what is wrong with editing with the reverse intention, so long as one edits neutrally as well? Anti-COI editors merely provide a "corrective" force in the system.

I do believe there should be more proactive measures against organised, malicious editing against the project than simple blocking. We note that in the case of Stephanie Adams, her legal team had continued for years to hound the project across a variety of IPs, and blocking refused to work. This seemed quite similar to the Singaporean politicians case. I had no previous familiarity with the article, but the legal team seemed quite intent on removing reliable sources concerning discussion of her (faked?) sexual orientation. This suppression was quite alarming to me. I would have moved for keeping the source anyway, COI or not, rather than deleting the article (I am a mild inclusionist). elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 09:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree there hasn't been a massive sample. There are 3307 people watching AN, and I am sure that more people have viewed (not commented) the thread than the RfC. I agree that a large portion of the people who have commented have previous involvement with you, but the fact that no one has agreed that punishment is correct is very telling. From my point of view, if an article is written in a POV manner, it should be re-written to be NPOV. That doesn't mean the POV stuff should stay with the opposite POV showing, which is what the comment implies. I accept that your intention does not match your actual edits, but WP:AN, or indeed your RfC is not the place that you will get any proper comment regarding the issues. Worm · (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that continuing to stick your fingers in your ears saying "lalalala I can't hear you lalalala" is simply going to add more people to the list of supporters on your topic ban. LGDP, look, you lost your adminship over this. You've (against all odds) pissed off Jimbo over this. At what point does that sink in, and you stop banging your head against the wall. You're proving that everyone else is right in this case. Accept the ban (for 3 months), go back to being an intelligent, well-thought of and policy-knowing editor. The more you draw this ridiculous line in the sand, the more trouble being caused in the short AND long run. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Humor

I'm sure this whole fiasco is frustrating. While we've certainly disagreed, I thought you might enjoy some cynical humor I wrote a while ago about a subject that you apparently spend a lot of thought dealing with. Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please coment at Pathlight School's ongoing peer review!

Thanks for all your contributions to Misplaced Pages, especially Singapore-related articles! I have written an article about Pathlight School, a Singaporean special school for autistic children, and am aiming to make it Misplaced Pages's first GA pertaining to special education. You are invited to comment at its ongoing peer review; any and all constructive feedback would be most appreciated. All the best in all your endeavours! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Recall

I have no idea why or how, but I am impressed that you abided by a recall decision. Well done. --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

You deserve one - for trying to improve Misplaced Pages and keeping cool under pressure eug (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Mmsia1.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mmsia1.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Kallangracialriot.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kallangracialriot.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Hey I just found out that the anonymous IP removed his comment even though the discussion is still going on. I kept his comment for the initial objective of the main topic in CHC talk page. Please accept my apology. Kimberry352 (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive ur long talk page

can u archive old sections in ur long talk page? Too many sections may use up my limited bandwidth.. Thanks. Kimberry352 (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bologna

You really should stop having your private little spat with Scotty. In case you didn't notice, an admin is in the process of closing the discussion, and the notice to that effect asks editors to stop editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Especially as someone who was once an administrator, you should be well acquainted with WP:POINT and realize that there are fundamental differences between Gavrilo Princip and Anthony Bologna. Therefore, I have blocked you for 12 hours. You are free to appeal this block; see WP:GAB and {{unblock}} for details on how to do so. NW (Talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What? I was making a genuine good faith nomination. Since Gavrilo was executed shortly afterwards (and didn't have the chance to say, linger in prison or make any statements or become any more notable than for one event), he really should be merged into the Assassination article, regardless of events in 2011. Furthermore, the "1E" in the BLP1E is more important than the BLP part. On a final note, blocks should be preventative and not punitive. I intended to draft two well-sourced articles following this, including police brutality in New York City which has many sources on the subject. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 23:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as the block has expired. Severe trouting for the claim that Princip was executed. He did in fact linger in prison for nearly four years before dying from TB, malnutrition etc. Favonian (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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

The pepper-spraying is a major event in that the size of the protests dramatically exploded following coverage of said event. In any case, I really do not think it is a WP:POINT violation and certainly not one deserving of a block. I made that nomination in good faith, and I genuinely supported its merger. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 23:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards NW on this one - Gavrilo is clearly notable for his place is world history, and this comment is a bit of a non-sequitor (may have spelled that wrong) unless you're trying to make a point. I'll leave this for someone else to review, however. Hersfold 23:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But why did you nominate Princip for deletion on the grounds of ONEVENT yet ignore the example for that section? Goldblooded 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

People can add bad examples to policy without affecting the policy itself. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you and Gavrilo Princip have something in common—a revolutionary spirit. Oddly enough, the establishment is on his side now. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT and Gavrilo Princip

Speaking personally and not as a Misplaced Pages editor, I am delighted at the growth of Occupy Wall Street and the nationwide 99% Movement (article idea?). However, pepper spray is not the same as bullets, and two weeks of publicity does not equal 97 years of historical analysis. Pointy action is disruptive to encyclopedic coverage and weakens your credibility in future debates. That's my opinion and you are entitled to yours. Let's both think about it because I could be wrong, but hope you will reconsider and advance the cause on this project through high-quality encyclopedic coverage rather than confrontation here. I wish you well. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dual citizenship in Singapore

As noted in the Ibrahim, Dual citizenship is possible, but only up to the age of 18. Its a very common scenario for children of permanent residents born in Singapore. You might want to also check out the Singapore Nationality Laws article which gives specifics on this. Its common for immigration bodies to take such consideration that they were dependents prior and can only make their own decision after the legal age of adulthood (and possibly eligible for national service). Its not an exception for him as you imply in your comments. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello La goutte de pluie! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Non-free rationale for File:PAPcheer.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PAPcheer.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

New discussion regarding you at ANI

Please refer here. ] Zhanzhao (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove tags

Please AGF before questioning my "agenda" in future, as you did on Suicide methods. The matter is being discussed at AN/I, and there have been hints at another AfD due to the content. The article has been tagged to aid in IMPROVING the article to avoid that. This is an encyclopaedia, afterall. Editors are free to tag articles that have obvious issues, and should not be reverting them as "agenda" without proof of that. Do that again and I'll raise the issue on AN/I, as anyone who does not see the need for cleanup has "the agenda" given the unacceptable tone of the article. Removing tags could be seen as disruptive. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  12:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the article looks more or fine to me. It's encyclopedic and well-sourced. Misplaced Pages is not censored. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN "fine to me". Not fine to several people on AN/I. You will find that your reverts be considered shortly. Reporting this matter to ANI. Don't need to use the talk page when the edit summary links an ANI discussion. Ma®©usBritish  13:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The ANI discussion AFAIK, was about inappropriate threads on a talk page. Please, list it at afd, if you desire yet another round of consensus-seeking.  :) Note that the boilerplates tend to refer to the talk pages. It seems to me that you knowingly added excessive tags simply to intentionally make the page look ugly, without pointing out specific content with "cite needed" or forth. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The page is already ugly, due to the pro-self-harm tone. Your accusations are uglier, and childish. Given the attention on ANI against the tone, I'd say that consensus already favours a rewrite due to the risks of the tone, which is sub-standard for an encyclopedia. I suggest you avoid the POV-pushing with useless assertions. Ma®©usBritish  13:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see this pro-self-harm tone. Are you arguing based on WP:UNDUE? What is so UNDUE about the information? Try taking a look at the techniques listed at nuclear magnetic resonance, which is quite comprehensive. This is like saying the NMR article is pro-Carr-Pucell or pro-T2*-weighting, or something, or that the article discussing basic fighter maneuvers is "pro-war".

(Also, POV-pushing occurs in articlespace and article talk space, not when speculating on a user's behaviour.) elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Again with the "I" WP:OWN. How's about I rvert again, see if you risk crossing that WP:3RR, shall we? POV occurs anytime your POV is pushed, including removing tags to maintain the version you want to impose, don't talk nonsense. These other articles are unrelated, I suspect you're creating straw man arguments to make your point. War isn't suicide. Teens don't walk into warzones to die. They top themselves in privacy. An article comparing the level of pain, success rate, etc is not good material. If you can't see that, I pity you and any kids who speak to you with depression, given that you don't recognise a safe tone to use. Nearly all of UNDUE applies, given the article is branded OR by several editors. Ma®©usBritish  13:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read what WP:OWN says. By no means have I implied that I own the article.

I'm sorry, but if your argument is not based on content notability or whether it is encyclopedic (which is what I thought we were talking about), but censorship to protect teens, then I'm afraid we no longer have a common ground for discussion. At Misplaced Pages, we use encyclopedic and factual tones, within the guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:V and so forth. I refer you to the Five Pillars. Good day.

P.S. If you must know, I am on Wellbutrin and risperidone so you can kindly desist with your insensitive/insulting digs. This discussion is over. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 13:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Censorship is blocking something 100% which would be AFD. As has been made clear in ANI, I support a rewrite to make the article academic, objective, etc. Now some half-researched, badly written comments about several methods and "how they work". Everyone already knows they work by making you die. Suicidal people might find info on pain/success useful. No one else does. It needs context. Famous people who have topped themselves, cultural, forensic, psychological rewrites to make it better suited to an encyclopedia. Teens can still read it all they bloody want, it just won't be an encouraging if they've gone crazy and want to find a quick and easy way to die. So don't talk to me about censorship, I loathe it more than anyone. Protecting people isn't about censorship, it's about word management. 5Ps - wow that's a good try. But they apply to everything. Seems you don't have a genuine reason to want an article of "top 10 ways to kill yourself", other than that you seem to feel it's appropriate. From now on use AN/I. We'll see who thinks what, exactly. Ma®©usBritish  14:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me you are unwilling to talk about the article in terms of an encyclopedic article and your overriding concern is that it somehow promotes suicide, to the extent that you would take issues with legitimate content. That to me, is pushing an "anti-suicide" POV. Btw, I do not support suicide, but Misplaced Pages has no business "protecting" people from themselves, other than its legal requirements, etc.

Your justification would also justify censoring content covering the euphoric "short term effects of alchohol" because it would encourage teens to get drunk.

Censorship is not "blocking something 100%". An article does not have to go to afd to be censored, and on that matter, WP:ANI is not a place to discuss content; it is a place to discuss matters in need of administrative, not editorial attention. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 14:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that you clearly don't comprehend what the difference between encyclopedic and trivial is, there's little point trying to reason with you. More straw man BS. Short term alcohol use is not the problem, the problem would be if it conveyed the "best beers to get you pissed" in the tone. If Wiki has no business protecting people, what are COPPA laws for? Wiki has a responsibility to be neutral. Pro-suicide articles are not neutral. Neither are you attempts to keep it as is. But hey, sleep easy, if any kid refers to it and decides trying on a rail track is the best way out, and does, you won't ever know that you endorsed the material that encouraged his choice. And your AFD stunt was despicable behaviour. They should have given you a short-term block for that disruptive attempt to spin another person's views for your own ends. Ma®©usBritish  14:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

La goutte de pluie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did the AFD in good faith. The user I referred to said the article wouldn't survive an afd without cleanup, and constantly referred to consensus, and insisted that I was acting unilaterally. I thought the afd was the best way to move forward and reassure him that "the article's content is notable". It's not WP:POINT at all. I was directing him to an appropriate forum for discussion, since he kept on using my user talk page and WP:ANI for content discussions. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 15:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You started a process specifically to call out another editor for a position they hadn't even taken, and did so advocating the opposite result (in re Deletion)? That's the very definition of WP:POINT. Quite frankly, 31 hours for this sort of thing was quite generous; I likely would have blocked for longer. Ignoring your involvement of another editor, bringing an AFD where you do not specifically recommend deletion is itself disruptive. If you want to discuss something elsewhere, say so - stop responding on your talk page with a "I'll be discussing this over here instead" sort of note - no need for the theatrics. Whatever merit your position may or may not have regarding this article, shenanigans such as this do nothing but undermine your point. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

• See - referring to the words I used: 'If this were an AfD, "as it stands" I think I'd be a "weak keep" at best.' The AfD you launched was to advocate your anti-cleanup, and did not correspond to what I said. But either way, you didn't have permission to use my name to nominate on behalf of. Ma®©usBritish  15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but as I recall you also suggested that other methods articles (if they did not concern suicide) would have been swiftly deleted. In any case, I would like an administrator (perhaps the blocking administrator) to review the criteria under Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing; I'm not at all a disruptive editor, and my sole purpose was to solicit consensus quickly, as a convenient means to resolve the discussion.

When I was an administrator, I routinely launched AFDs on behalf of people (who had initially tagged articles as speedy or prod) where I thought the article didn't fit the criteria for speedy for me to delete it, so I referred the matter to the community. AFD is a means to solicit consensus; the nominator does not herself have to agree with deletion. How is that disruptive? I wanted community input, which to me is the opposite of the traits listed under Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing.

P.S. please don't say I was anti-cleanup. I simply objected to tag-bombing (as ErrantX put it). elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 15:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Starting an AfD in someone else's name, without their request or even their permission, was absolutely the wrong thing to do, and looks very Pointy to me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How is soliciting consensus disruptive? I had no tactical intention; the user showed an ANI thread with people who seemed to advocate the article's deletion, and then used that thread to say I was working against consensus. Since I desire to work by consensus, I sought a consensus-building process, I thought an AFD would be a quick way to ascertain whether consensus existed to whether it should be deleted or not. I quote from WP:ANI: I'm seeing selective and arbitrary enforcement of WP:NOTHOW here. If I tried to write an article called X methods, it would be nominated for deletion in a matter of minutes to days. Yet, this one is allowed. Why?

I have routinely started AFDs where I as the nominator did not recommend deletion. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Parking In Motion for an example.

Decline reason:

It is this edit that makes it completely clear to me that you were disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. I recommend giving this further thought before re-requesting unblock again, as I tend to agree with User:Ultraexactzz that 31 hours was short, especially as you are still pretending not to grasp the problem here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

You made a mistake. I understand the context in which you made it, and I'm not here to hassle you about it. You're not going to get unblocked for arguing that you didn't make a mistake. Either let the 31 hours clock out, or post a unblock request saying you get it now, and will never, ever abuse a Misplaced Pages process to make a point. Gerardw (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

LGDP, I know we haven't seen eye-to-eye on a few things but I don't bear you any malice, nor have I been involved in your more recent conflicts.

However, in the past 3 1/2 months, you've been effectively de-sysopped and blocked twice for disruption, narrowly escaping at least one other block that I know of. I think it's probably a good idea for you to look at how you're interacting with the community and re-evaluate your behavioral patterns. I suspect there are external factors at play here as something seems to have recently changed. Either way, I urge you to take a long deep breath, maybe a decent wikibreak and re-evaluate how you interact with folks here and perhaps even if you want to continue. As it stands, you appear to be in a pretty steep spiral and it without a change, your future doesn't look all that good.

Please forgive the frankness, but there definitely seems to be something wrong here. Best regards. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Range Resources

I got him on talk, so you might want to chime in.

Also, please take a look at this, which was a copyvio lifted directly from the source. I am going to comb over the content in this article for more copyvios in the next few days. If you are aware of any more copyrighted material introduced into this article by anyone, yourself or otherwise, it would be a big help to get it out now so that I don't have to blank the article or start a CCI. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I used a very broad paraphrase; other than the names involved I don't think it was a copyvio. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The text you added was:

In June 2010 a Range Resources well being drilled by EOG Resources suffered a blowout that took a day to control; a West Virginia Range Resources well (being drilled by Chief Oil & Gas) suffered a seven-day fire and an explosion that injured seven workers. Pennsylvania temporarily banned EOG from drilling and fracking, and ordered the plugging of three boreholes in the Marcellus shale after complaints about water well pollution from gas and fracking fluids.

The source reads:

In June a Marcellus well being drilled by EOG Resources suffered a blowout that took a day to control, while another in West Virginia, drilled by Chief Oil & Gas, exploded in a fire that burned for three days and injured seven workers. Pennsylvania temporarily banned EOG from drilling and fracking. In June Pennsylvania ordered Cabot Energy to plug three Marcellus boreholes.

The differences in the text introduced by you seem to be either punctuation or errors (you said the fire burned for seven days, whereas the source says it was three, and the source didn't say it was a Range Resources well). This seems to me to be a very clear copyright violation. Where else have you introduced close paraphrases like this one? causa sui (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The impression I got was that they were subcontractors. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 02:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

la chaleur latente de fusion

Chere Goutte de pluie, dans ta nomination sur l'ITN, tu as oublie de mettre le modele Template:ITN_candidate. Je n'ai pas d'experience sur l'ITN, mais en principe les conseils pour l'ITN se trouvent ici. J'ai essaye de les suivre. Tu pourrais peut-etre ameliorer le blurb. Bonne vie heureuse :). Boud (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

David Rose (disambiguation)

Disambiguation allows for notable pseudonyms and variant spellings. The primary article for journalist Johann Hari is Johann Hari. There is no primary topic related to Hari's Misplaced Pages username (i.e. DavidR) therefore disambiguation is not required in this case. — ThePowerofX 22:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

La goutte de pluie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Umm...I am being blocked over an editorial dispute with the blocking admin. I merely disputed the maintenance tags' existence, and now I am being blocked for it? ] (]) 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Umm...I am being blocked over an editorial dispute with the blocking admin. I merely disputed the maintenance tags' existence, and now I am being blocked for it? ] (]) 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Umm...I am being blocked over an editorial dispute with the blocking admin. I merely disputed the maintenance tags' existence, and now I am being blocked for it? ] (]) 23:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note to reviewing admin(s)

Please note that removal of maintenance tags on Hydraulic fracturing is similar to those noted above on Suicide methods (see User_talk:La_goutte_de_pluie#Do_not_remove_tags). Editor was warned then and final warning issued immediately before block. This is not an editorial dispute - my only edit to Hydraulic fracturing was to revert this disruption - rather, this is a repetitive pattern of blanking tags. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed an editorial dispute. I removed excessive maintenance tags indeed -- you can see the maintenance tags have not been restored, because consensus determined that the other editor was trying to use them to tag an article with a "wall of shame". I was blocked over what was deemed a "disruptive" afd (you can view this above). This is completely different, and I disagree that it is disruption. I am not removing "citation needed" to make a point. I dispute that they should be there at all, because the cited information in the wikilink functions as a reference.

For example, if I were writing (in another article) "the population of the US grew by 78% from 18xx to 18yy blah blah blah" and included a link to Demographics of the United States it seems really rude to tag the statement with "citation needed" when the citations required are found in that wikilink, and the wikilink is more informative for the reader to go to. elle _{vécut heureuse} (be free) 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you chose to remove content from the comments I left to reviewing admin above, I have revoked your talk page editing privilege for the duration of this block. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock