Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 11 April 2015

FC

You know, I'm always kind of proud that, so far as I know, I've always managed to remember the southern hemisphere when writing Signpost articles that discuss holidays. =) Do yell at me if I ever forget. Adam Cuerden 23:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The featured content is ready for review up to the featured pictures section. I'm working on copyediting the FPs still. Adam Cuerden 08:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Think we're done. Also, I am totally stealing that Bandit's Roost image that appears when you edit this page as my next FP restoration. Adam Cuerden 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed your post

. While I personally don't care it's likely gonna be offensive to some folks. You're welcome to revert if you feel strongly it's a necessary part of your message. NE Ent 01:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I have zero objection to your edit. Typing what was literally the first thing to pop into my head (yes, that was my actual reaction) is not always the best way your express yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

GG AE

I really do not think you (and I also advised DHeyward as well) should make any decisions involving GG stuff. Run away from it Gamaliel! Don't even look back!--MONGO 01:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would love to. I thought I had once I divested myself of the Mark Bernstein topic ban, but I got dragged back in wanting to support User:Dreadstar on his no good, very bad day, and here I am. (Not that it's his fault, mind you.) Gamaliel (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We may disagree a lot but this GG stuff is a black hole. I can't control what others do but I'm going to encourage DHeyward and anyone else that wishes to retain their sanity to just avoid that arena.--MONGO 13:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, it's a black hole because ArbCom wrote the manual for anonymous trolls to conduct harassment and smear campaigns while banning the established editors who intervene to uphold basic tenets of policy. Until that failure is addressed, it will remain a black hole, because there are still devoted off-wiki-coordinated campaigns being waged to disrupt the project. 166.177.248.200 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I used to think I was one of the few with my finger in the dike trying to keep 9/11 conspiracy theorists from over running the website....I stepped back from it and others filled in the void. I recognize that if an editor is being smeared its something we should not allow, but I think anyone in that situation is better off if others are alerted and come to bat for them and they can step away.--MONGO 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about "stepping back," we're talking about a decision that banned editors who stood up to anonymous trolls to defend the encyclopedia's integrity at significant risk to themselves. The ramifications of that decision are not so easily wished away as you might like. 166.177.248.200 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What would you like to see happen now then? Arbcom could modify decisions or clarifications might exonerate some sanctions, but that's rare.--MONGO 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Anything else would have been to open the floodgates to those here to right great wrongs. That the cause is right doesn't justify treating wikipedia like a battleground; fighting fire with fire doesn't help. Curiously enough, since the removal of most of those fighting hardest anti-GG, the article has, somehow, not become the swirling den of vice and BLP-violation that was predicted. Edit waring, personal attacks, battleground behaviour and tendentious editing in general don't help make the encyclopaedia better, even when they're on the side of right and good. There is no need, as some have loudly alleged, for Misplaced Pages to choose between them and the trolls; it is possible to have both a non-BLP-violating article and civility on the talk page. Who'd've thought? GoldenRing (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

• Special report: An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey

• News and notes: WikiWomen's History Month—meetups, blog posts, and "Inspire" grant-making campaign

• In the media: Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West

• In focus: WMF to NSA: "stop spying on Misplaced Pages users"

• Traffic report: Misplaced Pages: handing knowledge to the world, one prank at a time

• Featured content: Here they come, the couple plighted –

• Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider logging it as it is beyond the scope of GG sanctions.

Your long description didn't provide any diffs. Any comment quoted me on is in arbitration enforcement space which is typically handled by clerks and you could have asked for redaction if you found them problematic. You didn't bring any diffs where this sanction would have stopped a single thing that happened. MarkBernstein is also being discussed again at AE by yet another editor. I agreed informally to your request and without evidence and diffs, per Ed Johnston, there is nothing you cited that warrants the sanction. You didn't delineate who made what comments. I don't believe you followed the consensus of the other admins that asked for evidence. Please undo your sanction as I have agreed to not do (and didn't do) what your sanction says. --DHeyward (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

if you really want to avoid drama, undue your sanction. It will only drag out an appeal per EdJohnston's comment. If your interest is getting back to building the encyclopedia, that type of sanction is unhelpful and the continuing AE requests regarding MarkBernstein shows that your solution didn't solve anything. --DHeyward (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, here is MB's response to the AE request brought by "NE Ent." Note he repeats a lot of stuff not related to the AE request and, quite openly, repeats the statement that led to his topic ban (see item 10). If you really want the drama amped down, dealing with that kind of stuff is necessary. How successful has all this been in removing that kind of continued rhetoric and agreeing with your sanction proposal? --DHeyward (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering that you still won't stop commenting on Bernstein, maybe that is evidence enough that an iban is warranted. In fact, this discussion might itself be considered a violation. Liz 01:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Liz I see you've been following me around. Welcome. And no, I am not violating any policy by asking the implementing admin to consider lifting a sanction and presenting evidence. This is three user talk pages today where you've injected your opinion to questions, comments and issues which do not concern you. I don't understand your interest. --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I have appealed your topic ban here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

wording

One Another thing that came up was wording. In one of your notifications I saw: "restricted from opening and noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein" and wondered if "restricted from opening and participating in noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein." might be better. I have some things to do in real life (been saying that for an hour now) and will get back to everyone later. I noticed that you hadn't even closed the AE thread when this new one showed up, so I'm content to wait until the ink is dry (and others have a chance to comment) before I continue on the one other thread. And thanks for the clarification. (although there really wasn't any question in my mind as to what you were saying). Good luck with the Signpost stuff. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I seriously mangled the ban wording due to cut and paste errors. I've fixed in on everyone's page and the sanctions log. Gamaliel (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

That link MarkBernstein discusses

Specifically mentions Thargor Orlando and me. MB specifically uses the same derogatory term that the offsite link uses for us. Either that violates your specific topic ban about discussing us or you have no intention of enforcing it against MarkBernstein. May I comment at the AE request? --DHeyward (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bernstein's link contains no editor usernames from what I can see? — Strongjam (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Self-reply, Oh I see, Pt4 comment does.. I have to be honest that's stretching it a bit thin to apply that to Bernstein. He should have replied off-wiki, but this seems like a lot of drama for a comment on his own talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC in Jan 2015

had

George W. Bush wikilinked four separate times.

Dick Cheney wikilinked twice

William Kristol thrice

Robert Kagan four times

Richard Perle four times

Paul Wolfowitz seven times

R. James Woolsey only twice

Elliott Abrams five wikilinks

John Bolton four times

Rumsfeld six times, Zoellick thrice, Schmitt four wikilinks, Donnelly thrice, Cohen four times etc. etc. etc. All are wikilinked for every list they appear in - and not even counting the mentions in the ref "quotes."

Note on the AfD case Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush at issue, the current state of the list has the initial sentence with twenty cites with extended quotes in footnotes, and (oddly enough since there is no actual need to iterate names in footnotes to such an extent per MoS) the quotes and cites mention "Bush" 24 times etc. Do I think a "merge" of this interesting sort of page makes sense? No. Thank you. Collect (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK, those names should only be linked on their first appearance in the article, but that is an MoS issue and has nothing to do with a potential merge. Gamaliel (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring my statement

I have no interest in what specific objections anyone has to the word, building, or idea of the Reichstag. I want to discuss the behavior of MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) and the merits of his topic ban, which is the purpose of the section in which I am writing. Admin or not, would you kindly not edit war on my arbitration statement without clear justification. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't mind the redaction but would like if you also removed Strongjam's BLP accusation.

Here's the well-reasoned essay by the only author credible as a source and I just repeated what she said. I think you understand the problem with aggressive BLP enforcement vs. ignoring or answering by not answering. I don't need to hash that out on the AE page but also don't need the lingering BLP accusation from Strongjam. It's unnecessary and I wouldn't have added it except for that. --DHeyward (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought I had redacted the accusation already. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Done. — Strongjam (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I missed part of it. Thanks, Strongjam. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Fold3 activation

Is there any kind of timetable for approved accounts to receive advanced access in Fold3? I was approved, signed up, and followed all of the steps on the WP:Fold3 page but I still only have basic access. Deadbeef 02:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a significant delay getting the information to Fold3 due to my error, but your account was on the list I sent them. We're waiting to hear back from them. I'll ask and try to find out what's going on. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure it wasn't lost in space somewhere. Deadbeef 03:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RSN post

Hi Gamaliel,

Just for reference, I was just trying to assume good faith when I posted this at RSN. Any encouragement I might have given that IP was completely unintentional. The same IP also made some other edits to threads on RSN page which probably should be looked into as well. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Southern Strategy Edits

The issue is not that I'm trying to add a New York Times article to the intro, it's that others are not engaging in honest discussion regarding the validity of opposing views. The article is heavily slanted towards one political POV and the few editors who seem to be tending the article are refusing (and in the past have removed) information from legitimate sources that add some balance to the article. The

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

tag in the title is clearly needed and a number of talk pages in the past have said as much. --129.59.79.123 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You can put NPOV banners on talk pages? I'm not sure if I can be trusted with this information. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

• From the editor: A salute to Pine

• News and notes: SUL finalization imminent; executive office shake-ups at the Foundation

• In the media: NYPD editing articles regarding allegations of police brutality and misconduct

• Op-ed: Does the Wikimedia fundraising survey address community concerns?

• Featured content: A woman who loved kings

• Traffic report: It's not cricket

.

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Getoverpops (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Gamaliel. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Southern Strategy revert

@Gamaliel:Your recent reversion is unwarranted. It is not proper to suggest the Democrats were the ones pushing for the 1964 and 1965 laws given the GOP was more unanimously behind the bills and were the driving forces behind the bill. I will ask that some change is made to indicate this was a bipartisan change. Please justify your change in the talk section. --Getoverpops (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Racism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I strongly suggest that you remove your edit summary from here. If you're going to accuse me of racism I take that very seriously. I have no idea what race you are, neither do I give a monkey's left testicle. It was meant simply as Sacha Baron Cohen says with "giving a monkey a gun", a loose cannon. I'm British, we don't call black people monkeys, and how would I even know what race you or others are. Blocking somebody like Cassianto for a week over calling somebody stupid is bad enough, but to accuse me of racism is bang out of order whether you disliked the criticism or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: If you don't want to accidentally insult someone, don't purposefully insult someone. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A mild insult considering your sanctimonious holier than thou attitude towards Cassianto and unwarranted block, especially given that you're involved. However, accusing me of racism, or even inferring it was meant as a racial insult I consider harassment and a gross personal attack. Remove the edit summary please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Involved? Ludicrous. I've never edited that article. Do not post on this page again. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I think you over-reacted. The use of the word "monkey" is not always a racist slur. You probably know that. Please think again about your approach to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. But it is one easily avoided by not using it to refer to others at all on an encyclopedia which, supposedly, has a rule against personal attacks. And those using it have not been punished for its use, no matter how much they may think they suffer in the face of mild admonishment. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but sometimes people will react and use phrases but not directly, I think that's really the case here. A "monkey admin" most certainly refers to the fact that there's a perception that many admins act without full human sentience. It was a kneejerk reaction and certainly wasn't a directed personal attack, just frustration. It's not right, but it's not worth going down the route of accusations of racism, real or percieved. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

And no accusation was made, only a caution to refrain from using an insult in a way that may be misinterpreted, especially since one should not be using an insult at all on the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, sometimes others can perceive things differently. I'm done here, I would hope that you could work to lighten the situation, and realise that your actions have done more harm than good, but it seems apparent to me that you are determined. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the hostility which has been exhibited by certain parties well before the comment being discussed here was made, I believe your pleas to lighten the situation are misdirected. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

As you like. It's a shame you can't be the better person here. And for what it's worth, they're not "pleas", it's simply good advice, misdirected or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you have made an attempt to calm them down, so I attempted to retract this comment before you responded to it. I would be willing to discuss addressing their concerns if they would be willing to do so in a manner that is both civil and not one-sided. Gamaliel (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I've suggested has been one-sided, I'd just like you to acknowledge that interpretation or misintepretation, or misunderstanding or some other miss has happened here. Frustration at perceived poor admin actions has escalated stupidly. Let's cool it down. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Both sides in this matter should rightfully acknowledge that comments, especially those said in the heat of the moment, are prone to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there's some indignation from the misunderstanding, it may be beneficial just to clarify your position, in so far as you were not, in any way, claiming any kind of racist remarks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's any help, when taken at face value, Blofeld's and Cass' comments do come off as racist. I'm sure they weren't meant as such, but such words ought to be used carefully. Ed  22:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I disagree, but then perhaps it's just a regional thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"refer to people of minority races as monkeys". Where exactly did I refer to a minority race as a monkey?? Is it an American thing to call people monkeys? I don't honestly think I've ever heard anybody call somebody a monkey racially in south Wales. My mother used to call me a cheeky monkey when I was a kid, that's the only place I've heard it. If Gamaliel is himself of a "minority" race and has been called that or subject to racial abuse himself then I can at least understand a bit more why he perceived it that way, but it really looks bizarre to even mention race to me. I've used several Sacha Baron Cohen references in relation to wiki administration in recent days. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In the US, yes, it is quite insulting, e.g. Obama Monkey Picture Shows Racism Is Alive and Well in America and Zach Braff apologizes after 'racist' tweet comparing Pharrell's Grammy outfit to the flying monkey in The Wizard of Oz. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Historically speaking as well, e.g. Ed  15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed and I are Americans, so there's definitely cultural differences at play here. I realize that things that are incredibly offensive here, like blackface, are not considered such overseas. I'm sure you are sincere when you say that your insult was not intended to be insulting in that particular way, but on a global encyclopedia we should all be more careful when it comes to cultural differences. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

So many things can be perceived as racist these days though. I used a Sacha Baron Cohen reference the other day on Admiral General Alahdeen's regime in which it seemed several admins sympathetic to Andy's infobox cause turned up in quick succession. Again I used the reference to giving a monkey a gun or flying a plane to what I perceive to have been a rather long block, and it was light hearted in tone, about expecting to find myself blocked by an eager admin for the slightest thing. Please just remove the remark from the edit summary and I'll remove the post from my talk page. Somebody like Cassianto doesn't appreciate being lectured on civility, so in all honesty your earlier comments directed towards him I think inflamed the situation. I didn't see his edit summary but his comment itself was mild I thought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That is the second time you have referred to "somebody like Cassianto" as if he should be treated differently than any other editor. He made quite a few absolutely bitey and unacceptable comments both to admins and to other editors and I was surprised he wasn't blocked a day sooner. No matter what someone's contributions to the project are, such hostility towards others shouldn't be tolerated. I'm surprised you are so upset by Gamaiel's edit summary (and monkey is a racial insult in the U.S.) but you lament that Cassianto was held responsible for his incivility. Liz 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

{tps} Dr. Blofeld, if you check out list of ethnic slurs, you'll find multiple ethnic slurs that include "monkey". A relevant one from the US is "porch monkey", but looking over that list it appears other countries/cultures use "monkey" as an ethnic slur as well. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but none of you have answered how I would possibly know what race Gamaliel is or what he looks like. If there was a photo of an African American on his user page I might at least see more where you're coming from. Have you never heard the phrase "to give a monkey a gun"?? It simply means a loose cannon, in this case a light hearted response to what I thought was a pretty heavy block from an admin. And anyway, had there not been an edit conflict in the removal of the comment I was about to post a link to this and say that perhaps Clouseau is a better comparison than to the minkey. Then I'd have been perceived as racist to the French. Sigh... You cannot be serious!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld - If you somehow didn't know the racial undertones of that term, you do now. I would assume most people, upon learning that their words have racist meanings, would apologize and vow never to use them again lest they offend others and promote racism... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr.B, did you intend "monkey admin" to be complementary?...I dunno, but it seems a lot of these misunderstandings could be avoided via just general civility. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofield, to call another editor, a human collaborator here, a monkey, a donkey, a dog, a frog, or any other animal -- that's never OK. We collaborate on the internet, but we don't know one another personally as to our personal characteristics or sensitivities. There are plenty of folks here whom you might think are hypersensitive about any number of subjects and factors -- race, gender, religion, politics and dozens of others. Your comments give the impression that you're turning the situation backwards. If I accidentally step on a fellow passenger's foot in the subway, I don't start disputing with them how it happened. I apologize for their discomfort and keep a bit more distance. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that many of us Europeans are sick to death of being expected to conform to the worst kind of American excesses of sanctimonious bullshit. Eric Corbett 17:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

When the defense is, essentially, "I was just being a jerk, not a racist jerk" then that's probably a sign that one is in a hole and it's time to stop digging. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Tarc said it better than I would have. Ed  15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, to be late to the party and manufactured drama fest, but on this side of the Atlantic (that's the European side), generally speaking, calling someone a monkey does not have any racist connotations. "Stop being a little monkey" is said by thousands of mothers to thousands of children of various origins as a very mild admonishment with no racist connotations (it means endearingly playfully naughty). Were that mother to say "Stop behaving like an overzealous Yank on Speed"; that probably would have a racist connections, but that isn't what User:Dr. Blofeld said . Giano (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"..calling someone a monkey does not have any racist connotations" is a lie, as I noted above. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, you you, Tarc, that is not the case, it's even a verb and seems to have dozens of meanings - none of them racist. I've even used a monkey wrench, does that make me a racist? Giano (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

... and of course there's the infinite monkey theorem. Is that also racist? Eric Corbett 17:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be better, in the long run, if Americans stopped editing Misplaced Pages; it;s obviously far too stressful for their delicate sensitivities. Giano (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to tar all Americans with the same brush, but there does seem to be a significant minority who believe that their world-view is the only correct one, and that any word they take exception to must be purged from the lexicon. Eric Corbett 18:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No I wouldn't tar (can't that a racist term too?) them all, there's a lot here who are very sensible, good editors - mostly of Italian descent, I suspect. Giano (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense. Using idioms containing the word monkey are not necessarily racist (though some are). Calling an individual a monkey is an insult and has racial undertones to it (even in the UK... images of apes were used to lampoon the Irish for years). If you can't refrain from calling people monkeys, collaborative efforts like Misplaced Pages might not be the place for you. Now stop trying to stir up shit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why are you addressing that remark to me, and therefore implying that I've called another editor a monkey? Attempting to propagate misinformation such as that would certainly come under my definition of "personal attack", even it apparently doesn't for yours. Eric Corbett 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should campaign to censor the apparently racistly-titled video game Gun Monkey. Or we could behave like reasonably intelligent adults and honor the editor's request to redact the edit summary. 169.57.0.214 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the word definition you all (Mr. IP, Corbett, Giano) need to need to brush up on is context. As in, "Dr. Blofeld used monkey in a racist context when speaking to Dreadstar." Tarc (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And yet another "personal attack" from the effortlessly impolite Tarc. Eric Corbett 18:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No I did NOT use it in a racist context Tarc. Please stop. A "monkey admin with a gun" means "a loose cannon shooting people down". If you think that was used in a racist context then it is you who needs to brush up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Tarc and Gamaliel know quite well that you meant no racist insult, and we have others like EvergreenFir jumping up and down with excitement like a child in a playground, shouting "Fight! Fight! Fight! Thinking your comment was in anyway racist is totally absurd - and they well know it. I would have use the term "cowboy admin" doubtless they would claim that was insulting white Americans. Giano (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Dr. Blofeld was intentionally racist. The point was that he shouldn't be using that slur against anyone, simply because he shouldn't be insulting people at all on the encyclopedia, and I'm surprised that point has been the subject of so much vehement objection and misrepresentation. Since everyone seems to have had their say at length, I'm going to close this discussion now. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

FC

Hi,
Looks like already delay for FC to publish, eh? Articles and lists are done. FPs are left a bit to fix and maybe I can pitch in..-The Herald _{my strength} 03:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not FC's fault, we're running behind on everything. Thanks for pitching in. Gamaliel (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Done it..Just need a copyedit..-The Herald _{my strength} 04:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I can pitch in Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2015-03-25/Special report also..-The Herald _{my strength} 05:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy

• Op-ed: How my father's railroad image collection now benefits the world: the value of digitization

• Featured content: A carnival of animals, a river of dung, a wasteland of uncles, and some people with attitude

• Special report: Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2014

• Traffic report: Oddly familiar

• Recent research: Most important people; respiratory reliability; academic attitudes

• Blog: The Misplaced Pages Library Team reflects on its new Visiting Scholars program

User page protocol

Hi, Gamaliel,
I was wondering what the protocol is about appropriating another editor's user page and copying it wholesale into your own. The editor who created the original page is Becritical (who has not been active in 2015) and the new user is Namecheapblues. I blanked the page and left them a edit note to create their own user page but I am unsure if this imitation is considered more than just bad form. Liz 16:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) (Nice job on the Signpost!)

Honestly, I'm not sure. I've skimmed Misplaced Pages:User pages but I don't see anything. Copying a page to mock someone is not appropriate, obviously, and we'd put a stop to that. Using other user pages as a template or inspiration is okay. But copying it wholesale, down to the exact same quotes, seems weird and also inappropriate. Maybe they copied it meaning to change the specifics later but keep the formatting? Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Do I smell of SOCK..??.-The Herald _{my strength} 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I note this post by the latter to the former's talk page, which indicates it is some sort of message/movement, probably related to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject OWS. This doesn't seem to be a case of socking or impersonating, but rather a carrying onward of "the message", whatever that may be. IMO, the blanking of Namecheapblues' page should be undone. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Becritical is not blocked and had edited for years so I don't know why he/she would create a new account with an identical user page if he/she just wanted to start editing again.

The only reason I noticed this appropriation is that I was looking at Namecheapblues's user page and noticed, despite it being a recently created account, they had been awarded barnstars. When I looked at what they were for, it indicated that they were given to Becritical so that led me to check his/her page. Let that be a lesson, if you are going to "honor" another editor by imitating their user page, do not include personal information that applies to them and not you.

Thanks for checking, Gamaliel! Liz 18:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the concern, but as long as they aren't using my username or something, I think that the content of my userpage makes it pretty clear that I don't mind copying :P Seems a compliment (: And anyway, it's just code and text, and under the licensing of WP, I don't see why they should not be able to copy it, or use and attribute it or whatever. B——C_ritical 23:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not me, and I don't know who the user is that copied my page. B——C_ritical 23:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I just thought "borrowing" your barnstars was uncool, Becritical. But I guess we can put the matter to rest. Liz 02:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reckoning

You must realize it was your removal of Mark Bernstein's topic ban that led to Dreadstar's resignation. The project lost a good admin today because you put partisanship before your admin responsibilities. At the very least I hope this serves as a wake up call - start taking your responsibility seriously or put down the tools. The project is more important than any ideological bullshit. 107.77.76.61 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this comment here so everyone can see how stupid it is. Gamaliel (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous claim. I found clashes between Dreadstar and other editors a few weeks ago. If anything, it was the Laurence Olivier article unprotection that was the straw that broke the frustrated admin's back. Liz 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It was stand out a lot better if you'd archive the top part of your really long user talk page. NE Ent 10:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, wikistalking and trolling

Gamaliel, could you weigh in on a matter stemming from both the "Racism" topic above and the infobox arguments elsewhere? Our Mr. Blofeld here has followed me to an unrelated article and continued to deliberately toss the "monkey" slur around. Then, a jab about infoboxes in an article that has never had an infobox debate. By any rational observation, this is trolling. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at the very least it's a bit of Wikihounding. I've reverted his comments. Hopefully, that will be the end of it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't. Pathetic. I have better things to do than stalk a troll like Tarc. Ask Ritchie333, if you doubt my involvement with Beatles albums articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Blofeld was just having a humorous joke about why I added a new section to Talk:The Beatles (album), because too many users have changed the "Genres" bit on the article's infobox without discussion. So to stop any edit warring, I added that. Blofeld is right that if an admin came across lots of reverts without anything on the talk page, without any of them looking like vandalism, everyone would be edit warring and not trying to get a consensus. He probably uses "monkey" because of this, meaning a laid back admin being the straight man to Johnny Vegas' edit warrior. That's the trouble with humour, it doesn't travel well. When somebody mentions Poldark, I think of this and everyone else in my house thinks I'm weird. Ritchie333 12:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I came across it via Ritchie and found it amusing that I saw a comment by Tarc on heavy handed admins and couldn't resist the joke. That Tarc thinks he's worthy enough to be stalked is most amusing, I only check the contributions of actual content contributors. I'm interested in Beatles articles believe it or not. Again, more unfounded accusations...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again; lying, and pretty obviously this time. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh my word. Don't call other editors liars, don't remove talk page comments unless they need to be redacted, don't offend admins if you know they will be offended. Doing otherwise just aggravates the situation and ends in tears. Now, I need to do some work on Piccadilly and North Circular Road, so I'll leave you with this nice picture of a cat so you can all go "aaaaawwwww" and forget about it. Ritchie333 12:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

• In focus: WMF's latest strategy document shows successes, vagueness, and the need for better data

• In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism

• Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.

• Traffic report: All over the place

• News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Misplaced Pages and its editor base

• Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I absolutely adored your April's Fool articles. Thanks for the effort to put some smile on our faces. werldwayd (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk back

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

• In focus: WMF's latest strategy document shows successes, vagueness, and the need for better data

• In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism

• Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.

• Traffic report: All over the place

• News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Misplaced Pages and its editor base

• Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Gossip_on_signpost NE Ent 21:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If "the human interest angle has made it go viral on social media, and national media attention has repeatedly highlighted the Misplaced Pages connection." the reasonable thing would to be to add references supporting that contention. I think no one has because they don't exist -- I searched for them before commenting. What I'm seeing are unsupported assertions and irrelevant refs, such as (on the AN thread) this one, which make no mention of Misplaced Pages. The references provided thus far might arguably be suitable for content edits to Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia, but do not support the concept the Misplaced Pages angle is significant in generating the cover. The simplest resolution is for you to remove the statements from the Signpost. NE Ent 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen that Uproxx story. Links previously provided by Ed and myself to other stories substantiate that fact that the Misplaced Pages connection has received national media coverage, such as these: . Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Signpost archives

Hey Gamaliel, as I mentioned a month or so ago, I wanted to spend some time organizing the Signpost archives so that readers can easily find stories in previous issues.

However, I ran into one anachronistic problem. For Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost archives 2011-02, Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost archives 2011-03 and Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost archives 2011-04, there was some aspect of a template that assigned every single recipient of the Signpost during those two months into those categories. So, rather than these two categories containing 30-40 articles published during that month, it contains 700-800+ user pages as well (see Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost archives 2011 for the numbers). I've tried looking into the templates but I'm really no expert in this matter and I'm not sure if a assigned category can be retroactively deleted from an old template. But there shouldn't be any user pages in these categories.

I'm going to ping @Go Phightins!: and @The ed17: in case they have some idea about what to do. I've found one or two other things that need some technical fixing from 2013 but right now I'm concentrating on 2011. Thanks for any help you can provide! Liz 12:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've determined where the problem is but I don't like the idea of fiddling with a major template that the Signpost might use. For example, there is Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Archives/2011-02-14 which automatically includes Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost archives 2011-02 on every user page where the 2-14-2011 issue is posted. Similar information is posted on Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-02-14 so I'm not sure if we need the first archived page as well. So far, I've found this problem in February, March and April 2011 Signposts but not January. Liz 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's what the contents of a monthly archive category should look like: Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost archives 2011-01. Also, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Archives/2011-04-18 is a page without the assigned category while Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Archives/2011-04-18 has the automatically assigned category. If you could just check the template for issues between 02/07/2011 and 4/11/2011 and adjust them, I'd greatly appreciate it. Liz 14:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging our resident template expert, @Resident Mario: Gamaliel (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The categories are such a mess. If I remember correctly the categorization simply stops at some point, and someone went through and partially tagged "Signpost stories relating to women" in a cat as well (see the gender gap tag for that). I'll look at it again later today. ResMar 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. Fixing it requires wrapping the issue cat in <noinclude></noinclude> tags. Liz, can you go back and do that? They're your cats... Unless you have a regex editor installed on your browser there's no non-laborious way to fix this issue, or to insert the cats going forward, either (HotCat doesn't provide noinclude functionality). You might want to look into WikiEd for this. ResMar 22:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Or better yet drop this categorization silliness (it can be done by a bot if need be) and conserve your energy for the truly massive tagging task that'll come once the research index scripts are fully rolled-out. Here's a beta result for gender-gap, for instance. ResMar 22:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: I don't understand, the problem lies in the issue templates (like on Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Archives/2011-04-18) so isn't there a way to change the template so that it doesn't automatically assign categories to each page where the template is placed? I've done this before in instances where the template creator thought it would be helpful for each page that contained the template to be assigned to a certain category but it just caused a lot of confusion, usually like this, with user pages being categorized in subject categories that should only contain articles. If the template was only used a few times, it was simpler to remove the automatic category assignment and then add the category on to the relevant articles that should contain it.

I don't think that categorization is silliness, I've made 6K+ edits to categories. It's how readers and editors find articles. Plus, the WikiProject Signpost articles are already categorized, so why shouldn't the other subjects be categorized? Unless it was a WikiProject article, the original articles from 2011 were not categorized at all so it would be just about impossible for a reader to find specific Arbitration Reports or Opinion pieces. Now, you can go to Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost Arbitration report archives 2011 and Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost Opinion content archives 2011 to find out what was going on during that year rather than having to look through each individual issue which is what I've had to do in the past. With 52-ish issues each year, that is a lot of time wasted searching for information.

Plus, the only area of trouble are these monthly categories, like Category:Misplaced Pages Signpost archives 2011-08, which contain these specific articles (like Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Archives/2011-08-01) that are causing the problem. Also, I don't understand the sense of inserting <noinclude></noinclude> which would make the categories pretty much useless, if I understand it correctly. Plus, I brought up the idea of doing this in February and got the okay. Even if categorization is only, say, 85% useful, rather than 100%, I think it is a worthwhile pursuit. Liz 19:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I don't fully understand the research index scripts but that looks like a very useful list. If you need a human being, rather than a bot, to tag articles, I could help out with that after I've finished this task. Liz 20:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: To fix this issue: go to one of the issue indexes, for instance, Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-02-14, and look at the cat, in this case ]. Whenever a page which contains a category is transcluded that category is trascluded as well, which causes pages containing deliveries, to list themselves in this category as well. You can fix it by wrapping the cat in the "noinclude" tag, which prevents the category from being transcluded, the result being that while the archival page is in the cat, any transclusions of the archival page remain un-categorized. At least, that's what I think the issue is. Delivery and storage of Signpost articles is so damn complicated, and it's never been fully uniform.

With regards to cats, yes, ok, this would be the best way to do this but I and User:Mr. Stradivarius have spent a lot of time and effort coming up with a better system, one we're currently actively working on that doesn't use cats at all. If you want gender-gap, here it is; if you want all op-eds, here you go. All news and notes would be here. The system isn't perfect because it's still being refined. True accuracy will require readers manually going back through the archives and tagging stories. Strad is working on scripts that'll allow us to do just that. Cats just aren't flexible enough for our purposes in this case, and you're duplicating a lot of much more technically sophisticated efforts on our part in a not-smart way. Once these tags are implemented fully I doubt anyone will take a second look at categories again. I've been trying to tell you about this for ages :(! ResMar 20:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair use in Signpost

Hi Gamaliel. Near the bottom of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2015-04-08/In the media, you use the non-free image File:Action Park looping water slide.jpg. Normally, per WP:NFCC#9, images used under a claim of fair use are only permitted in article space. Has any kind of exemption been granted to the Signpost? --B (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I'd gotten it from Commons. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Layout

This is how I would have made the layout. User:Hafspajen /Layout. If anyone would have asked me to do it. Hafspajen (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Do you feel you are unable to contribute to FC? There seems to be some conflict between regular contributors to FC. Is there anything I or the other Signpost editors can do to help address this? Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Please ask Go Pingins to arrange some kind of contact. 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk)

I think he is offline for a few days but when he returns we will make arrangements. Gamaliel (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, Gamaliel, please, move parts of this this discussion to internal. It is not honoring us. Hafspajen (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I am having trouble with something I started - before him, that was going great. And something I enjoyed, that gradually is getting worse, because of this editor, and I am feeling responsible for involving him, and feeling responsible for all the mistakes. Hafspajen (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This has become absurd.....talk→ WPPilot  18:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI: The user has now called me a potential murderer with regard to a comment I made the day my cat died. My true ID is public and as we have seen this user has made sure that no one can discover "its" true identity. I am a pilot and now I have a irate user calling me a deadly person. That is as personal of an attack as it gets, please help. I have no idea what it is I did, and these attacks are going to continue to disrupt the process and by design my ability to contribute unless this is brought to the attention of Admins.... talk→ WPPilot  17:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

• Op-ed: We are drowning in promotional artspam

• News and notes: Advancement department to be created at the Foundation, milestone fixes

• In the media: Misplaced Pages on 60 Minutes, Kickstarter, and in the classroom

• Traffic report: Resurrection week

• Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity

• Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)