Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:21, 15 December 2013

Rollback.

Thank you. I will do so. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PERM

Just FYI, requests there are normally not removed after being handled, they are periodically archived by a bot. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Wasn't aware that there is a bot now. John Reaves 20:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Atheism". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  19:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

I beg you to read carefully through the thread before rendering judgment. I think the history of peer-peer interaction in Austrian economics pages indicate that you can't expect accurate representation of information from conflicting editors. For instance, we are accused of massive BLP violations for posting self-published blogs regarding a BLP; yet it is never noted that EVERY post that was reverted from the article consisted of experts (Professors of economics) discussing the economic theories of the BLP. (Clearly exempt via the expert exception on WP:SPS) Please read my remarks on the EW page before rendering judgment. Steeletrap (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." John Reaves 04:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course! But if you'd read the page, you'd see that the "Facts" are all established by Murphy himself, and the outside sources are simply used to respond to the established fact that he endorsed these economic predictions/methodologies. I have stopped editing the page, but it appears that at least some of the blogs are being re-inserted by an uninvolved users. Steeletrap (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing the AN3

Alas, I opened the thread with hopes that NDESC would be respected. It spun out of control, but that does not surprise me. Still, even now, we see commentary being added. I suggest you template the thread. Thanks for taking a look at the AN3 even if it did not produce the results I had hoped for. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Already done. John Reaves 04:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich, for your own good, I hope you'll consider whether you had any valid policy concern -- either about NDESC, which doesn't apply to the disputed text -- or about 3RR, which wasn't remotely approached here. I know that you get very agitated about these articles and frequently vent about it on your talk page, but I'm concerned that there's a slight tone of denial in your comment above. I do hope that you'll reflect on your experience and actions this evening and come back refreshed in the morning. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Beauvy's unblock

Hello, can I ask why you granted Beauvy's unblock request, the one that contained unfounded allegations against me? A couple of admins seemed to think that Beauvy was simply confused when she claimed that I blocked her, but that claim of hers is consistent with accusations she has made in the past. She claimed, for example, that I was responsible for her first block as well. Look at her talk page. She stated, when first blocked, "So you blocked me via a different user name, that is related to a different IP address." I'm not demanding that Beauvy be re-blocked, but I do find it hard to see how unblock requests that contain baseless accusations against other users can be considered in good faith. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It was about to expire and it seemed overly punitive to leave it in place. John Reaves 20:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That the block was about to expire hardly seems like a reason to remove it. I don't see it as being "overly punitive" to decline unblock requests that contain false accusations against other users and are obviously being made in bad faith. Respectfully, I consider your unblock to be an error of judgment, and I find it strange that you would avoid responding to my reasons for considering Beauvy's request to be in bad fath. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The user accused you of blocking them. Sounds like confusion to me, not a bad faith accusation. John Reaves 20:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it does look like confusion if you look at it in isolation. In fact it forms part of a pattern of accusations by Beauvy against me. As I said, if you can be bothered looking at her talk page, you will see that she accused me of blocking her (using a sock-puppet with admin privileges!) when she was first blocked. Her comments in her latest unblock request were just one more example of this. I'm going to leave this here. I won't bother you with more comments. Time will tell whether Beauvy will be capable of editing in a productive manner. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere

Hi there. Sorry to bother, but I left a reply yesterday to your post regarding Therequiembellishere. I'm just letting you know because I'm going away soon, and I'm really eager just to make sure my concerns don't drift into inactivity and archiving before some resolution is reached. After a year of this dispute, as you can imagine I'm very eager to end it. :) Thanks. Redverton (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, but my report got delisted due to inactivity with no resolution reached, so I've gone ahead and relisted it. After a year of dispute, one way or another I'd like closure, so please do feel free to check out my reply there to your post. Redverton (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I was just trying to get things going, I don't really have any further comments at the moment. 18:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've got a feeling this relisting is going to drift into inactivity as well - infobox edits are hardly the most glamorous topic. :P If so, I'm probably going to drop this dispute. No doubt I'll make the odd edit here and there regarding his changes, but I never have much time to edit Misplaced Pages and I'm rather eager to go back doing some more substantive work. As far as I'm concerned, I've done my bit to try and rein in someone who I think to be disruptive, and I'll leave it to others to take over if need be.

I at least have a strengthened sympathy for you admins. Dealing with one disruptive user has gradually worn me down. Hate to imagine what you guys have to go through. Thanks for the good work. Redverton (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

edit

You are absolutely correct about the Bayless edit. I let my hatred for the man get the best of me. It was inappropriate at best.

The edit you changed on Clay Guida's page was wrong. Those are correct nicknames. I happen to be a personal friend of his as well as former wrestling teammate, 1996-2000 Johnsburg High School, 2001 Harper College. You are taking away good information and your threat to block me was completely uncalled for. I will be changing it back with a ref. as soon as I find one.

I really don't appreciate your threat.

Have a good day, John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Hair Diaper (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Help me

Hi John Reaves From yesterday onwards my chat option banned.can you please enable the chat option.i want to ask questions about my article.Do the favor

http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help&uio=MTE9MTg1ff

this is the link .i did chat in this window about my creation of article.after one hour it shows that i was banned till now i am getting the same message.how can i use live chat option help.how much i will be banned. below is my ip address: ip.118.102.131.106. so please do the favor to do live chat to fix my problems in creation of my article.

== gateway/web/freenode/ip.118.102.131.106 is now your hidden host (set by syn.)
== #wikipedia-en-help Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned
== #wikipedia-en-help Cannot join channel (+b) - you are banned

Matthew Bryden

Hi John Reaves. Please note that Inner City Press is an accredited media agency at the United Nations headquarters in New York , where it has an office in the UN Secretariat building . It also reported that Bryden was removed as Coordinator of the UN's Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group ("Schbley previously worked on the UN's Somalia and Eritrea sanctions, from which after complaints he and coordinator Matt Bryden were removed" ), and was the first to do so. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

One man simply having press credentials doesn't make a reliable news source. If there were UN documentation of the his forced removal, that'd be a source John Reaves 17:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

ANI

I would like to address your comments at this recent ANI. After my last comment, I was off-line until just now, and since the ANI was closed awhile ago and I cannot comment there, that leaves me to comment here instead. It seems that, in your response to me, you focused almost solely on the comment I made about a "racial slur". That is unfortunate, as the issue I was trying to address was Beyond My Ken's behaviour, specifically, following me to an uninvolved user's ArbCom Candidate Discussion page, solely for the purposes of instigating a confrontation. His comments were baiting, off-topic and only served to disrupt the page, and hinder that user's chances at a fair election. This is both outreageous and completely inappropriate, yet was just as completely overlooked by you and the closing admin. While in light of the recent warning given to BMK for his behaviour, I believe sanctions are called for, but at the very least, he should have been given (another) stern warning for this conduct, and all of his comments should be removed from that page (it isn't just some talk page... ). This has nothing to do with that user, and is unfair to him.

Now, with that said, I would also like to address the "racial slur" comment. First, I will point that I prefaced that comment with the caveat "...(what is to me at least)...". That's important because I wasn't directly accusing him of using a racial slur so much as I was pointing out that his comment could certainly be considered a racial slur. It many circles, it is. You only need to type "pot calling kettle black" into Google, and in the drop-down menu that provides the top 10 most popular words to complete that, "racist" is ranked number 4. If you the go to look up the results of "pot calling kettle black" (without the word racist), there is a multitude of articles that discuss that idiom, as it relates to racism. Now, is this issue as important as the one I pointed out above? Maybe not, at least to some people. (Others could, and do, find that phrase to be offensive). Either way, among all who commented in that ANI, I am not the one who needs to be "educated" on this.

I will ask that you, please, consider these matters further, before simply dismissing everything outright. - WOLFchild 20:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

My encouragement is still to avoid these pages all together(e.g. AN/I, ArbCom, etc.) if it all possible. My concern here is with the encyclopedia as a whole and how what you and Ken are doing affects it. And from what I can tell, it doesn't. As in this feud and these threads are superfluous and contribute nothing toward making Misplaced Pages batter. I'll be gone for a few days, but please consider spending less time on the editors and more time on editing. John Reaves 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're response is disappointing, to say the least. My comments addressed two separate, specific issues and if it is not too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you would take a moment, and provide two specific responses to those issues. You're the admin here... the one we all look to for policy insight and guidance. We look to you for solutions to problems. Ignoring the problem and telling me to "go away and be quiet", is not a solution. - WOLFchild 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

bump. - WOLFchild 05:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

These things work themselves out. John Reaves 02:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That's... um, some great administering... Thanks. For nothing. - WOLFchild 05:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC) (and wikipedia tilts yet another degree off center, as it continues to flounder... )

Matthew Bryden

Hi John, Thank you for your edits at Matthew Bryden. As background info I wanted to make you aware that a number of editors have expressed concern about Middayexpress's editing on that article. More details are here at ANI if you care to look. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I'll continue to keep an eye on the article. John Reaves 16:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

New Admin school

You may want to consider moving all the pages in the old category since your edit created a category redlink. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe, since the category was in a template when it was updated, it may take a few days for it to update. John Reaves 02:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it done automatically? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 07:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As I understand, it can take a few days for the server to update non-article space categories. John Reaves 16:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

File:"The Lion King at the Minskoff theatre, Mar. 2013".jpg

Was this file deleted here or on commons. Reason i ask is if on en.wiki under a fair use rationale i am wondering why, as there are deletion requests on commons in relation to theatre images with production photo's (virtually all due to nature of a theatre's business) and were being advised to move these to en.wiki with a fair use rationale.Blethering Scot 19:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted locally. It was uploaded as GFDL but was actually a derivative work and ineligible for free licensing. John Reaves 19:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.Blethering Scot 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick

No prob. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Murphy removals

Hello again, John. Please explain your rationale for your removal of "bogus" material on the Murphy page. Are you saying that the Krugman blog (which, while technically a blog, falls under a news site because it is published by the NYT) is an unreliable source, or that it does not reference Murphy, or what? Steeletrap (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I see Steeletrap did revert that material that is ever so questionable in BLP for reasons that several editors have explained to both of you repeatedly in several different sections on the talk page. I did say I would take this to BLPN if it was reverted again, but since an Admin did delete it and the article is under Austrian economics general sanctions, I'll wait and see what John Reaves wants to do about it first. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Since we're talking about "admins", I would remind you, User:Carolmooredc, that another Admin (User:Gamaliel) supported the inclusion of the Krugman material when this was debated a month ago. Blogs published by the New York Times are reliable sources; really they're blogs only in a technical sense, and for WP purposes fall under the purview of 'news site' RS. (Similar to an opinion column published on the Times website) I would also encourage you not to invoke appeals to authority ('but an admin agrees with me!') and other logical fallacies when arguing that an edit violates policy. Steeletrap (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gamliel at this diff put back in that Krugman allegedly mentioned Murphy himself. I guess like me and evidently other editors he didn't check the source to see that Krugman did not mention Murphy but only refers one to a self-published blog for the name of the individual of whom he speaks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_P._Murphy_re:_Paul_Krugman_quote Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter R. Orszag

Can I ask you to lift the full protection on this article? "Editors" who were removing the info have all been blocked as socks. --NeilN 04:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN 06:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thanks for closing that majorly biting nonsense MFD. I was just about to do it myself. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Reblocking Cashman777

Because this account was only used for Vandalism, please re-block this user indefinitely. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No. That's not a policy. John Reaves 19:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. John Reaves 19:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Consider joining the Tyop Contest!

Farshad Fotouhi

Yes, the facts about Fotouhi's corruption need to be contained somewhere they can be neatly jettisoned if his 'meatpuppets' game the system to hide the truth. But I'll play along, I'll write into the capsule you've designated. Because at least Wikipediots have no power over Crain's Detroit content. And because even if it accomplishes something, at least I will know that I knew something and didn't just keep quietly. Detroit Joseph (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)