Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 13 December 2016

Archives

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi De728631.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Mr. Vernon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 동해문화예술관, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, De728631. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:People, after which named in honor asteroids

Hello De728631 I just did not want a long time in the articles was the name with strongly marked errors, if the majority would vote for the name of Category:People with asteroids named after them, ... And its subcategories to Category:Scientists with asteroids named after them and Category: Speculative fiction writers with asteroids named after them, or other names, it will be possible to rename. But to me they seem to be less accurate and correct, although, plus of alternative names - short of them.

P.S. And you could not do a redirect from the old categories, if necessary ? With respect.--Yasnodark (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if your intentions were good, this was totally out of line. Please see the comments by other editors made at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 19. De728631 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

De728631 At that moment I was guided by them (comments by other editors). Everyone said that the previous name wrong "Category:People, after which named in honor asteroids". And two users and I chose the name "Category:People who have asteroids named after them":

"The current name is terrible, and almost anything would be an improvement. How about Category:People who have asteroids named after them? StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)"

But now the majority leaning toward a different option "Category:People with asteroids named after them". I am waiting for you to summarize the discussion results..--Yasnodark (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I won't sum up or close the discussion because I am an active participant. Closing a discussion while one is actively involved in the matter is considered bad practice and would only lead to a new assessment. It needs to be summed up by an uninvolved admin. This request and your early creation of the new category pages makes me think you might want to read Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process#Deletion_discussions to learn the basic rules about deletion discussions. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry please, I just noticed that you are support one of the options.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:TheGracefulSlick

Would you consider raising the level of protection to extended confirmed? It seems that this would be the best option for now. Dustin (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done De728631 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for complying! This constant rollbacking was probably more a game for the vandal than anything else. I'm glad that it's over with. Dustin (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope so too, but judging from the protection log this must've been going on for months now. :P De728631 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot about User talk:Sro23... I'd keep an eye on that page, and maybe consider protecting it too. Dustin (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I'll put him on my watchlist. De728631 (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Zeno

Please see Talk:Zeno, señor de Vizcaya. Given that this page is the creation of a banned user and not a single of the cited sources is considered reliable by modern historians, this page shouldn't even exist, let alone be sacrosanct. The problem is, historians don't waste time going through all of the old sources and saying what is made up, there being too much nonsense and time is too valuable - they just quit referring to the information. A Google Books search shows not a single book from the 20th or 21st centuries that have this person in them. 50.37.101.176 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that this had been created by a sockpuppet. While the sources do look reliable to me, I have still tagged the page for speedy deletion. If that is denied, you may want to nominate it for a deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. 50.37.101.176 (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah well, it seems that too many people have already edited the page because the article was found to be uneligible for speedy deletion only because of sockpuppetry. I have now opened a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to hear some other opinions regarding the quality of the sources. De728631 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hannes Tiedemann is first page I created with so much content at hand. I appreciate your notes of missing cites (which I've corrected) and help with the cites themselves. I hope I didn't muck anything up when I edited for the corrections. 🙄 Shen97 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I made some more edits because the bit about Franklin Castle you got from their Facebook page was phrased a bit too close to the original text. All in all the article looks much better now. De728631 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Frage zur Zuverlässigkeit

Hallo,

Ich möchte nur noch einmal bekräftigen, dass mein Anliegen nicht darin besteht den publizierten Artikel im "Gegenwind" von Misplaced Pages zu entfernen oder zu diskreditieren, nur weil die Extrapolation der Zahlen hoch angesetzt wurden. Im Gegenteil, ich möchte die Glaubwürdigkeit der angegebenen Hypothese mit anderen Quellen verifizieren. In keiner mir bekannten literarische Werke zur sexuellen Gewalt, wurden solche Extrapolationen von gleichem Ausmaß gemacht. Ursula Schele wird folglich auch nirgends namenswert erwähnt. Ich habe bereits eine Email an die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung geschrieben, da sie eine Liste sämtlicher Publikationen bereitstellt und gemeinsame Arbeiten mit anderen Verläge und Autoren ausweisen könnte. Viele Grüsse zur späten Stunde. Raynolo (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Alles klar, das hatte ich schon aus dem Beitrag am schwarzen Brett herausgelesen. Leider habe ich auf die schnelle auch keine Quellenangaben zu den Zahlen finden können. Man sollte ja meinen, dass Frau Schele als anerkannte Beraterin sich mit den möglichen biologischen Folgen einer Vergewaltigung auskennt, aber dieses 1/10-Verhältnis sollte man hier bei Misplaced Pages schon besser belegen. Einen nächtlichen Gruß zurück. De728631 (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für die Rückantwort. Ich hatte bis anhin leider die Impression, dass der Artikel von Ihnen ohne Einwand und unter Berücksichtigung sämtlicher, nachweisbarer, bestehender und oder anerkannte wissenschaftliche Publikationen zum Thema, einfach als bare Münze hingenommen wird. Ich begrüsse daher Ihre Bedenken bzgl. weitere Quellenangaben und Verifizierung. Es wäre wünschenswert wenn Sie das auch am "schwarzen Brett" bekräftigen könnten. Ich wünsche eine gute Nacht. Raynolo (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Weitere Recherchen

Guten Abend,

Ich konnte bis jetzt leider noch keine weiteren Querverweise zur möglichen Studie von Frau Schele ausfindig machen. Eine nahestehende Kommilitonin riet mir ich solle im Intranet des Clio, unter H-Soz-Kult meine Recherchen zum Thema fortzuführen. Unter anderem ist mir dabei diese Rezension zum Buch Eroberungen. Sexuelle Gewalttaten und intime Beziehungen deutscher Soldaten in der Sowjetunion 1941-1945 von der Historikerin Regina Mühlhäuser aufgefallen. Rezensiert wurde es von den beiden Historikern, Frau Springmann und Herrn Ossietzky von der Universität Oldenburg. Ich habe mir dann sogleich auch das Buch in der Mediathek ausgeliehen, in der Hoffnung weitere Anhaltspunkte oder gar eine Bekräftigung der aufgestellten Hypothese machen zu können. Beste Grüße Raynolo (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)