Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:17, 7 September 2013

If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I'll probably add it to my watchlist, but if I miss something, feel free to leave a talkback. If you leave a message for me: I will most likely respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means. (See this policy.) If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks. If you're here to troll, harass, or vandalise, I might not be able to stop you, but you will be reverted...and beware the giant dice.

This editor is an Auspicious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix.

Archives

as Aerobird - Jul 2008-Apr 2010 - May 2010 - Jun 2010-Oct 2010 - Nov 2010-Dec 2010 - Jan 2011-Mar 2011 - Apr 2011-Sep 2011 - Oct 2011 - Nov 2011-Dec 2011 - Jan 2012-Feb 2012 - Mar 2012-Apr 2012 - Apr 2012-May 2012 - Jun 2012 - Jul 2012 - Aug 2012 - Sep 2012 - Oct 2012-Jan 2013 - Feb 2013-Mar 2013 - Mar 2013-May 2013 - May 2013-Jun 2013 - Jun 2013-

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Lucia Black topic ban

I'm here to report a possible violation of Lucia Black's topic and interaction ban. While checking the GAN talk page I just saw Lucia indirectly referring to me and the Ghost in the Shell dispute. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_nom_ninja and she refers to Ghost in the Shell (video game), which is under Anime and Manga wikiproject. This comes 3 days after Canterbury Tail warned her about violating her topic ban. I only nommed it for GAN because I substantially improved the content and got additional sources, the plot, the cast, the development, etc. only for Lucia Black to call me a "GA nom ninja" and say I am taking advantage of her topic ban. I think this may be a violation of IBAN and maybe the topic ban. And for full disclosure, I have long since stated I would be improving the GITS media to GA or FA with days of work leading up to the Ghost in the Shell (film) nom prior to her topic ban. I've been on a GA push for a lot of articles after working through my first with Prabash.A, these have been A&M articles like Otaku and The Castle of Cagliostro, and after more than five hours of work at Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (film) I GANed it. I don't think I am being a "ninja" or anything and I am a little annoyed by the bad faith, but I am concerned about the repeated references to me and the topic ban pages. I will not comment on the GAN and I am avoiding areas outside the topic like Template:Track listing to avoid interacting with her as much as possible, but she still continues to accuse me of bad faith and do this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like an open-and-shut case to me. Lucia Black has very clearly violated the IBAN, and almost as certainly, the topic ban, in both letter and spirit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and blocked - the WP:WIKILAWYERING evident in the "not saying what or who" doesn't keep it from being a violation, and I've cautioned about WP:OWN as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Need an experienced ear

Hi Bushranger, let me say first that I am not WP:FORUMSHOPPING for intervention, rather I am only seeking personal edification about my approach to the following, if you have a few minutes. I'm coming to you because I didn't want to bother the same admins I usually do, plus we both chase Kuhn socks! I attempted to make an edit to The Big Bang Theory a few weeks ago. I found the summary language repetitive, but also felt that summarizing critical response based on cherrypicked reviews constituted original research, and more specifically WP:SYNTHESIS.

A semi-retired user objected to my edit, saying that it disrupted the flow of reading. I didn't see a problem with the readability, because the facts can speak for themselves, but I reorganized the section somewhat, setting up the reviews chronologically, and again deleted the lines I considered WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. I simultaneously started a discussion on the talk page to explain my OR argument.

The user reverted again, with the edit summary, "Per BRD. It gets DISCUSSED!" We've been back and forth a few times on the article's talk page and on his talk page, but I've yet to hear an explanation for why the phrasing is NOT synthesis. Instead he's admonished me about violating BRD, and ordered me to BE BOLD, provided that my boldness is to either find more reviews to support/refute the summaries, or to get other editors' input to make my changes stick. He's created a scenario where he doesn't have to justify his objection, and I am forced to go through a variety of procedural hoops (including soliciting opinions from WikiProject Television) to make what I think is a fairly solid, policy-backed edit. On top of that, because he's semi-retired, I have to wait for him to come 'round again before getting any more info out of him. What have I done wrong, and what could I do differently in the future? Did I miss his explanation? Can we call this "content-squatting"? I appreciate your thoughts, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Looking at the bits in question, I can see both sides of the argument here - it could easily be seen to be WP:SYNTH based on selecting certain reviews and not neccessarily looking at all of them; at the same time, I can see how a case could be made for their inclusion, based on the reviews provided - if the sourcing really does reflect that, which is the crux of the issue. Now, it seems that the other editor here is being a bit combative; I don't think you've done anything wrong, just bad luck, as it were, in debate partners. My personal leaning would be to leave the text in question out unless it can be cited that sources have noticed the shift in review tone... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the insight! So if the user objects, but doesn't participate in a constructive discussion, there's not much I can do, eh? The status quo must be maintained until I can get other opinions? It doesn't seem that I could even go to WP:3O because the issue hasn't been "throughly discussed". One of the various problems I have with the existing language, is that it is entirely dependent on whichever reviews were selected. Pick bad reviews and the POV shifts. When do you suppose would be a reasonable time to commit the change? I only have two outside voices, one pointing out that this type of summary is considered synthesis at WikiProject Film, and another user who conditionally agrees with me. I don't have a solid consensus yet. Do I need just one person to say definitively, "I think it's synthesis. Cut it"? I appreciate your time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally there should be another person; if they're not discussing constructively either WP:3O or WP:DRN might be options, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ford Credit 125

On 6 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ford Credit 125, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Ford Credit 125 was both the first NASCAR Truck Series race to be broadcast on network television and the shortest race in series history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ford Credit 125. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Phillips (merchant mariner)

I'm puzzled as to why, with three issues to be resolved in the afd, you would snow close this. We needed to know is there was enough notability to keep the article, of course, but also where the article should be in that case so that the third issue - the page history merge - could be carried out. It bothers me a little that none of that was addressed in your closing statement, nor did it appear to be resolved in the afd. Since you are the one that closed the afd, I am interested to know if the other two issues had/have been dealt with, or did you simply ignore htem altogather? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Those other two issues are not within the remit of AfD. If it hadn't been for point #1 asking if the article should exist or not, I would have made it a speedy-keep per WP:SK1, as #2 and #3 are things that need to be discussed on the article talk page, not in an AfD discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Yeah, baby, yeah! Puntaalpo (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)