Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

Scotire

A few FYIs regarding this user:

1. Now blocked for 6 months on Commons (edit warring and personal attacks).
2. An obvious related IP has been identified (Special:Contributions/59.167.60.9
3. I have identified a copyvio on WP see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Scotland#Scotire and copyvios

The last of these is particularly worrying, as I expect there are many more affecting many articles. Do you have any idea on the correct process to follow?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably all of his contributions will have to be removed. Lot of work. --John (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly agree its a lot of work! :( I don't think all the contribs are copvios, but between that and removal of the POV issues he introduced... sigh.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be easier to remove all his contributions than to search each one to see if it is a violation. What a nuisance. --John (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Shires of Scotland

I am attempting to follow the debate on the removal of categories referring to Scottish 'shires'. The term 'shire' is in common use in Scotland. I understand that the Post Office no longer uses that element in an address, and that Scottish Council areas are an administrative delineation, but shires do still exist. There are at least ten Scottish Westminster constituencies which are shires.

Who has made the decision to make these changes? And where can I find that recorded?Shipsview (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. --John (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

obsolescent / obsolete

http://en.wiktionary.org/obsolescent gives a definition inconsistant with usage in warrior article , surely one must be incorrect ? 78.105.186.64 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary is user-generated and so it isn't the best source. All the same, "In the process of becoming obsolete, but not obsolete yet" seems fair to me. Like the Panavia Tornado in 2013, the Warrior could still do some useful work but was definitely no longer state-of-the-art. Or like Windows XP, as I said. --John (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting comparisons. I must agree that "obsolescent" is by no means a less clear or unduly verbose wording of "obsolete" - it means a different thing. I recall in particular the appendices to The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, which contained an exhaustive listing of the weapons used by both sides in 1982, and noted specifically that many weapon systems used by the British were either obsolete or obsolescent at the time.

The outstandingly fiery example of either one or the other, was the Sea Slug (missile). The version in use had a limited capability against ships, and the British tried to exploit this by approaching at night and attempting to fire at the Argentine defences of Port Stanley airfield from more than a dozen miles offshore.

The attempt was an utter failure, but the British fleet received a request to try again, from British ground forces who by this time were on high ground within sight of Stanley. Asked whether the request was because success was likely, the ground forces said no, absolutely not - the weapon should be used again purely because its ridiculous take-off sequence, involving multiple separate booster rockets spinning like a Catherine Wheel, was a grand display even from the British positions, and might have an equivalent effect on the morale of Argentineans who saw it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. I have that book and I must reread it. --John (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's rather surprising. I see the editor in question has self-reverted, which seems like the wise thing to do. --John (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning on Brad Pitt

Before you claim a WP:BLP exemption, please note "hat counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Neither the BLP board or ANI have given any indication your actions are exempt from WP:3RR. --NeilN 23:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Before you come here giving me a "warning", please ensure you haven't just restored multiple instances of tabloid journalism to a BLP, in contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Shoah (film)

I've just spent a wet Sunday trying to improve Shoah (film) only to see a lot of it undone. I wonder if I could trouble you for your opinion whether the article was better before or after . I am a slow editor and reluctant to throw good time after bad, but if you think it was better before, I am prepared to have a go at defending my edits per BRD. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I see good in both versions. It should be possible to strike a compromise over this material. --John (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill  17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

user: Y45ed

A couple of weeks ago you blocked user Y45ed for genre warring. Just wanted to let you know that he/she is at it again. ChakaKong 01:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --John (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Question

You obviously don't have to answer this, but it would be a kindness if you're willing to, and would help me personally in getting a better picture of you as an editor: what's your class background? For instance, what's your profession, to what level were you educated and where, what were your parents or guardians professions, that sort of thing. Thanks! Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I decline to answer the "class" question, as I don't believe in class. George Orwell will explain the subtleties of the British class system to you if you can be bothered. Educationally I have a science degree from an ancient university, a post-graduate degree, and a qualification in teaching English. --John (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks very much. (Don't believe in class, hmmmm. That's OK, there are also people who don't believe in the Forth Bridge I suppose, although explaining why there are trains at North Queensferry station requires some mental gymnastics I would think.) Yes I agree Orwell is top-drawer on these things and I really should read him more thoroughly. Thanks again! Herostratus (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that I don't believe in class as a predictor of intelligence, workrate, values or anything else important. Obviously I realise that it exists. And the Orwell reference wasn't meant to sound snotty; there's a great essay about class that I haven't read since I was about 13 - do you know the one I mean? Oh, and there were trains at NQ for many years before the bridge was built; there was a ferry, dontcha know? --John (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't know (about the ferries). And the Orwell comment wasn't taken as snotty at all -- bringing Orwell into most any conversation improves it. I haven't read that much Orwell so I don't know the one you mean, but I've lately been at Chris Hitchens (how he'd hate that "Chris" but he's no longer a WP:BLP so the heck with him!) who very much wanted to be Orwell. I can't recommend the memoirs unless you're really into Hitch, but the essays are worthwhile if you skip judiciously. Anyway, I crafted a (very, sorry!) long request to you (the actual request is at the end), but it was edit conflicted by all this here, and maybe some doesn't exactly apply given your more detailed response, but I'm going to paste it in verbatim, since this is a talk page and not the Literary Gazette and I'm not inclined to do further copyediting. It's below. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Among the many useful tasks User:Flyer22 performs here is watching and engaging on articles like Pedophilia and related articles. In a nutshell, we're contending with the sort of editor who wants include material such as "However, some researchers contend that sexual experience even at a very young age, if done with care and mutual consent, can be harmless or even healthy ". As you might imagine, these people can be well-versed in obscure literature on the subject and on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, tireless, and of course careful to use language much more subtle that the example I give. Contending with this sort of thing is stressful and unpleasing for a number of reasons, and there're not many editors willing to do it who have the requisite learning, intellectual chops, and patience to do it well.

User:Flyer22's one, so you can see why her expressed retreat from that article due to "other things, including stressful things with regard to Misplaced Pages" troubled me and prompted me to look into that, and so I found this. In all candor, I have to say that that was a spectacularly bad edit. It's OK, we all make a lot of edits, and some of them are going to be bad edits. I know I make plenty of bad edits. The thing then is to move forward, be big enough to admit the mistake, and make corrections.

Drilling down into the situation, I found a great deal of contention re People and the New York Daily News. I didn't read everything in detail, but I see where you (understandably, we're only human) got your back up quite a bit. Argument here is often contentious and stressful and taking fixed positions comes naturally and can be functional, but consider. Your position seemed to me fairly idiosyncratic. As the author of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources checklist (check it out -- I'm a bit proud of it) I have thought about these things a little bit, and I'm not seeing your argument as the stronger, and certainly not incontrovertibly the stronger.

OK, so anyway, I guess we don't agree about the veracity of the New York Daily News and People, and you've been pretty vociferous about that -- "not on my watch" and so on. This would not be my concern, except for the collateral damage described above, which makes it my concern. So, wondering about that, I tried to form a picture in my head of just what's going on here. Let's drill down through this together.

The New York Daily News is a working man's paper. It's the kind of paper you'll find discarded on the subway, and maybe with grimy fingerprints at that. That's a data point, but in and of itself it's a minor point re reliability. It's a minor point because in my experience working people want the facts they read to be correct as much as anyone else. (People's pitched more to the lower middle class, but "the sort of person who reads People magazine" is also a construction that most people would "get".)

I realize you don't believe in class, but that also is pretty idiosyncratic, and I'm only going to allow you one idiosyncratic position today =). That social mileu and so forth influences our attitudes is pretty established, I'd say. I believe -- along with, I think, most everyone else who's thought about it -- that social class (along with many other things) influences our thinking, often in ways we're not aware of. In fact I'm confident of it.

Anyway, assuming that I (and essentially everyone else) is correct about that, what newspapers we read define us in class terms, to ourselves as well as others, just as do the clothes we wear, the pubs we frequent, and so on, I believe. A visceral aversion to publications of a different class follows from this, and in fact is rife in my experience. Everyone in my city understands which is the working-class paper and which the middle-class, and which one is proper for them, and from an early age. (FWIW they're about equally good, although no proper middle-class person will admit this.)

Anyway, in "our attitudes" I include "your attitudes" (as well as "my attitudes"), and there's the rub. The facts as I've reviewed them lead me to believe that your position is largely informed by a visceral aversion to the publications in question.

I can't prove any of this, could be wrong, and don't wish to debate this with you (I will if you want). Instead, I'd ask you take some time and just calmly consider this to yourself, within yourself, if you will. If I'm wrong, feel free to ignore me, blow me off, counterargue, or whatever pleases you (since it won't really matter). But if I'm right, you made an error in templating User:Flyer22. An understandable error, especially in the heat of the moment, but one that needs addressing.

The actual request

So, depending on the results of your contemplation of this matter, I'd like you to apologize to User:Flyer22 for the templating I mentioned earlier. Effusion is not required nor a complete reversal of your position re the publications in question, and of course you can't do it if you still think your edit was justified. However, if you could see your way free to do this, this would be a kindness, would be helpful to the project, and would speak well of your character and flexibility of mind, I think. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the time and thought that you have put into this. I disagree with several of your premises. Here is the edit I warned her for. You will observe that as well as the People references which were disputed, she restores the New York Daily News ones, and one from The Sun. It is neither snobby nor visceral on my part to point out that these are unambiguously and undisputedly bad sources for a BLP, and this is what the warning was for. Whether her edit was intentionally disruptive or the result of an error, this is the sort of edit people are blocked for and as I stated below I believe I or any admin would have been justified in blocking her had she continued. As it was she made two reverts of non BLP-compliant material during a dispute with an admin, before running off to a drama board to complain. She has also repeatedly insulted me (I can't be bothered searching for diffs but there's a whole section on her talk page you can read) and misrepresented me and my motives. Again, whether this comes from malice or stupidity on her part is immaterial; she has definitely had all the apology she is going to get from me, because I regard adding or restoring tabloid smut and sleaze to Brad Pitt's article every bit as seriously as you regard controversial edits to the paedophilia page. I will back off from removing more People sources pending an RfC about this, but I will if anything be even less flexible and tolerant of unambiguously tabloid sources on BLPs as a result of this interaction. Once again, I really do appreciate the time and trouble you have put into this request but I decline it. Best wishes, --John (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

On sourcing and the yellow press

I have walked away from the wankfest that the AN/I discussion has become as I have better things to do and little time to do them in. I have a job, a family and am still recovering from moving house. I thought I would make a final comment on the whole People furore.

• As a serious encyclopedia we can never use material from the tabloids/red tops/yellow press to source contentious information about living people. Full stop. You may like this, dislike it, or be indifferent to it, but that's what our policy says. If you don't like it, get another hobby. Charity shops are always looking for volunteers, and I hear Facebook is great fun. On Misplaced Pages we can't use tabloids like this. As always there will be a very few valid exceptions; Neil Kinnock has been mentioned, Freddy Starr's non-hamster eating escapade, the GOTCHA in the Falklands War as it related to certain living people. That's policy, and breaking it will get you blocked. I will still enforce this, by warnings and blocks if necessary.

• It seems there is a sizable body of people who think People is a good source for BLP material. It's a gossip magazine for goodness sake! Garbage like this and Hello are not good sources, and I believe should never be used on BLPs, but I concede they are not quite "tabloids" so strictly fall outside of current policy. We seemingly need an RfC to properly determine whether we want to use garbage sources like these on BLPs, which astonishes me but so be it. It seems to be like arguing over just how runny faeces has to be before we consider it to be diarrhea, but ok.

• Arguing for using poor sources on an article about a living human being seems so counter to our mission that I find it extremely hard to assume good faith on the part of those who have done so. Nevertheless I apologise if I have hurt anyone's feelings during this episode. It should be possible to disagree without getting upset when one is wrong. "Warning" another editor you are in a dispute with, after you have just restored non-compliant sources to a BLP, is the very definition of dumbassery, but I suppose that editor is not always a dumbass. We all do silly things sometimes. Edit-warring to restore bad sources can never be regarded as "best practice"; a guideline should be that if sources are challenged, better ones should be found. Where they cannot be, the article should be edited to reflect this. I have faith that the Brad Pitt article will be improved as a result of my intervention, which is something good. Once again, our Featured Article process is made to look extremely silly, by promoting an article which was partly based on poor sources.

So it goes. Onwards and upwards. --John (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll excuse me if I call this a load of self-serving dumbassery (not that you're always a dumbass)? --NeilN 19:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll excuse you, Neil, the well-meaning human who edits using your account. But I don't think that's a helpful comment, and I have come to an opinion about your understanding of our mission which the shallowness of your comment only reinforces. I'd love to revise that opinion upwards. Tell me, do you ever do anything useful here, like article writing and the like? --John (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Look through my 40,000+ edits and judge for yourself. And really, why should I care about your opinion on this matter as you've not put forth one argument supporting your contentions. Explain why you think People is a garbage source (People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source doesn't cut it) or point to previous discussions involving this and then I'll take your opinion as having value. Finally, I have to laugh at the statement that your intervention will improve the Pitt article. No, it was Flyer22 raising the matter at various boards and Ritchie333's excellent work that will improve the article. I guess you can take some of the credit for getting them to do the work you should have done. --NeilN 19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't care about my opinions, why are you posting about it on my talk page? --John (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't care as long as you stick to "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source". But this issue isn't going to go away so I'm hoping you'll have some good insights and arguments in the forthcoming discussion. As I stated above, as soon as you start doing that, your opinion matters to me. --NeilN 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say "People is a garbage source because it's a garbage source"? A diff will be fine. If you can show where you think I said that, maybe we can have a conversation. --John (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing. If your argument has more depth than "People is a garbage source because I say so" then I apologize but I haven't seen any evidence of that except for one total red herring. --NeilN 13:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tumbleweed --John (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)