Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:56, 27 August 2017

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Paul Denyer

You reverted my edits regarding HIS GENDER. HE is LEGALLY only recognised as MALE and SHOULD NOT be referred to as FEMALE.

Until such time that HE has undergone treatment and be GRANTED PERMISSION BY PRISON AUTHORITIES to LEGALLY be identified as "PAULA" HIS information SHOULD REMAIN ACCURATE AND LEGALLY CORRECT TO REFLECT HIS LEGALLY, BIOLOGICALLY AND PHYSICALLY CORRECT GENDER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.45.140 (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

SINCE YOU HAVE REVERTED THIS TWICE, YOU SEEM TO A)NOT CARE ABOUT HIS LEGALLY RECOGNISED GENDER AND B)HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR HIS VICTIMS.

DO I HAVE TO GET A COPY OF HIS PRISON RECORDS TO PROVE THAT HE IS STILL LEGALLY MALE AND NOT RECOGNISED AS FEMALE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF? 202.53.45.140 (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Nihlus Kryik. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- There'sNoTime 07:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Misplaced Pages:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Misplaced Pages:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih 07:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney

I'm on editing now. Please wait, i don't do any disruptive things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPL2007 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please block me

I want you to please block me so I can't make any more edits here, it's clearly what's best for everyone here. Please don't ask any questions, just do it. -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

James Lauritaitis

It is well known that his mother is a powerlifter, which is commonly available in articles, on his father's Misplaced Pages page, and in his father's autobiography. Having a specific citation would just be clutter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7CC4:FA00:8465:4E9B:8782:8278 (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

About M.A. Baby's page

Hello! I think you made a mistake. on biographies of living people any unsourced material needs to be removed immediately according to the rules. which is what I did for M.A. Baby's page. there was no source (Well, there was one but it was a link to a random website which wasn't talking about M.A. Baby) and it had a mountain of text. so I fixed it by removing the unsourced stuff, and than adding some stuff with a source. (also, it was impressive how quickly you reverted the edit haha)

Kingxander123 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Kingxander123

Thanks for letting me know. I reverted my edit. nihlus kryik (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

House System at Caltech (Lloyd House)

Hi Nihlus,

I recently added a slogan to the Caltech House System page for Lloyd House as "Lloyd sucks". It was reverted for vandalism. The slogan of Lloyd House is actually "Lloyd sucks". I am a former member of Lloyd House and know this to be true. You can also see a reference to it in this published document from 1983: http://caltechcampuspubs.library.caltech.edu/2414/1/1983_02_17_01.pdf

Can you please put the change back and put something on the page to note that this is correct? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4A04:86D0:2893:4DE0:DC74:AF0B (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, can you find something more recent that verifies this? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Gaudreau

Why do you keep reverting my edits to Johnny Gaudreau?

GoFlamesGo (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)GoFlamesGo GoFlamesGo (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of you need to take this content dispute to the article's talk page and stop edit warring on the article. Failure to do this will result in blocking - please please don't edit war, you two. Discuss the issue in dispute. :-) ~Oshwah~ 01:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

These are BLP violations. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

How do you get to the article's talk page? What does BLP mean?

GoFlamesGo (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)GoFlamesGo

You can do so by opening the article and clicking on the "Talk" tab near the top. Or you can simply enter "Talk:" into the search and Misplaced Pages will take you there. You can also just click here to go there. Thanks for taking this to the article's talk page and discussing the issue at hand :-). I don't want to see you blocked over something such as this :-) ~Oshwah~ 01:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"BLP" refers to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. In a nutshell, articles that are biographies of living people undergo much more strict scrutiny than most others. Everything you add needs to be referenced by a reliable source. Unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial or negative - is to be removed on-sight. If people add that kind of content to BLP articles repeatedly, they can be blocked. That's the policy in a TL;DR. I highly recommend that you give it a read so that you're familiar with it and don't inadvertently cause BLP violations :-) I wish you the best of luck with your discussion regarding the content on Johnny Gaudreau :-) ~Oshwah~ 01:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoFlamesGo (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nihlus Kryik - You're right; I apologize for the mistake on my part. I somehow managed to read the content differently than what it actually stated. Reading it again, it's definitely controversial. I've removed the full protection as well as the content in question. Please do not hesitate to message me on my talk page if you still have questions or concerns regarding this situation, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for providing a follow-up to my messages and for letting me know that I was derping and incorrect with my assessment :-) ~Oshwah~ 02:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

No harm done. But thank you for your comments. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You may not have done it directly, but I'd like to thank you for inspiring me to change my signature. Critique is optional. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A request

Please merge and combine Islamic Azad University Medical Branch of Tehran and Islamic Azad University Dental Branch of Tehran in one page titled Tehran Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences — Preceding unsigned comment added by For7always (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The Not Hounder

I appreciated it that you discussed my concerns with me at ani even if we don't see eye to eye. SlightSmile 15:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Mokhber Dezfouli

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I undid your reinstatement of the BLP-prod for Mohammad Reza Mokhber Dezfouli. Actually the IP editor added a reference. Clearly the sourcing of the article can't be considered adequate, but in borderline cases such as this, the article is no longer eligible for BLP-prod. The article should either be nominated for AFD or improved to an acceptable standard. Judging from the university page, he is most likely notable, so it may be worth fixing the article. Regards, decltype (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Decltype: I am new to the area of BLP & AfD, so thanks for letting me know. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Procedural question about rfc's

Just a small question. You opened the rfc and alerted some people involved in the discussion. However, the discussion was going on for quite a while. Shouldn't all editors on the talk page and the archive who discussed this be alerted to the rfc? PizzaMan (♨♨) 06:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: I tried to get all editors that were actively editing the page and involved in the discussion on the talk page. Let me go back and double check and notify anyone I might have missed. Thanks! — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have notifed DESiegel, Agentxorange, and Zellfaze. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you. Since I'm involved in discussing the topic i felt it was inappropriate for me to do it. I'm sure there's some WP: policy that some people in this discussion would hold against me. By the way, are you the person to also close the rfc? PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: It's not a requirement that I close it, but it's not forbidden since I am not really participating or voting. Normally RfCs are left up for 30 days, but I believe this will go stale sooner than that. If it does, I can look to call it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

Please check the information from https://www.immigration.go.ug/content/visas-and-passes Hong Kong is not in the visa free list which is not the same information in visa requirement of Hong Kong citizen. Please check and reply.182.239.83.151 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Inappropriate"

Just to leaving it here in a different and just something minor. Regarding to the other discussion as you said that I was inappropriate, I just wanted to know how. I have always been respectful and literally no one has ever called me "inappropriate" here in my Misplaced Pages life. And I am sure no swear words were states and I am sure I know my text language? :| Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: The only thing I stated was inappropriate was Meow's notifying you and not the user she was reporting. I did not comment on the merits of the report or the conduct of those involved. Please reread what I stated. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry then and yes I can't read :P. I really just want to be out of any trouble of some sort. Just literally ignore this (weird) discussion now, pretend this never happened and have a great day. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

altleft

"As for the 'alt-left,' researchers who study extremist groups say there is no such thing." 

well they exist and they date back to 2015 they existed before trump and hannity talked crap please read all of the links https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 2001:8003:117E:6D00:59BA:76FB:8BC8:BECD (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Westworld RFC

Why was the RFC on the Westworld talk page closed so suddenly? The discussion was still active, the last post being only a mere 25 minutes before your own closure. An explanation would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. -- Alex 10:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The last vote was almost three days ago. I began preparing the closure before that last comment. In addition, there is no time frame in which a close must or cannot be performed. It was headed to no consensus rather quickly, and would not have benefited from further discussion. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there was a large amount of ongoing discussion within the past three days in respect to those votes, with twenty contributions to the talk page within that timespan. If these discussions continued, then a compromise may have resulted between the editors of either side, and a consensus eventually formed. Please link me to the respective page that I need to go to to have this close reverted, so that the discussions may continue. Cheers. -- Alex 10:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That is a wildly optimistic viewpoint. Your vote essentially won by default as a deferral to policy, so I hardly understand your race to revert it. WP:RFC states: "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be." There is absolutely no way a consensus would have been reached that would have gone against policy. Further discussion is a waste of other's time at this point, as displayed by your recent header listing all the discussions already had. The discussions regarding Bernard are encouraged to continue and have not been closed. Focus on those instead of filibustering the process. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Better to be positive and assume good faith than to prematurely put a stopper on any form of consensus forming. Simply because my view on the topic has the ability to stand due to the "no consensus" vote, I am still able to understand that discussion was still actively going, and should be allowed to proceed to do so. I'll find the place to appeal for its reopening myself, in that case. Cheers. -- Alex 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing. I believe the closure was in good faith, but it shouldn't have happened. WP:ANRFC states that The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 26 July 2017); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. There was obviously no clear consensus and the discussion was still ongoing, with a lower pace as expected. In addition, the issue in question at the RfC concerns the interpretation of Misplaced Pages guidelines and if no clear answer is given, it is very likely that the content dispute will perpetuate, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. This RfC should be closed by an administrator, who has a complete understanding of the Misplaced Pages guidelines that are under discussion, like WP:SPOILER, WP:TVCAST, WP:OSE and WP:UNDUE. -- Radiphus 11:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I will point both of you to WP:CLOSE. Specifically, this part:

Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review:

1. if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself.
2. if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.

This is hardly a contentious close as the policy regarding the topic has been discussed to death at this point. Consensus was never going to be achieved to overrule policy, and that RfC was not the appropriate place to do so. In addition, discussion was not ongoing. In the last three days, one comment was made, and it was by neither of you. Further discussion should take place on the side discussions that were opened up as that is where you will be able to reach consensus. Also, the fact that I am not an administrator does not mean I do not understand policy, so I ask that you refrain from making such personal attacks about me going forward, Radiphus. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have reverted the closure. As the editor who began the discussion, and who has commented on it multiple times, it is wholly inappropriate for you to attempt to close it, even in the case that consensus is exceedingly clear, which it isn't. TimothyJosephWood 13:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And I reverted that as inappropriate. I was not involved as I did not express an opinion on it and opened the RfC as a neutral third party. Please stop being disruptive Timothyjosephwood. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Do not modify my signed posts at MfD. Ever. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)