Misplaced Pages

Hi Aaron

Don't let this place beat you up, man...it's not worth it. I was merely trying to ensure that we follow WP:BLP to the letter. I don't see that you have done anything wrong at all, but I also don't find the article on Deborah Frisch to be notable. Have a good one.--MONGO 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Zucker, Ph.D.

I think two of the three external links that you removed from the Jessica Zucker, Ph.D. article ought to be restored. The newsletter article by her was included to demonstrate that her article was of interest to a wider audience. (In this case, it was reproduced on the Postcolonial Web, a page hosted by the National University of Singapore.) The "porn blog" (actually a sex therapist's blog) was included in connection with the research that Zucker was doing for her Ph.D. dissertation. I don't care about the ZommInfo.com page, although Zoominfo.com often does a good job of aggregating information available elsewhere on the net into a userful whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthbringerToronto (talk • contribs) 20:04, October 3, 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's no big deal while it winds it way through AfD. I'll put them back. --Aaron 00:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, they're back. --Aaron 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• No prob. --Aaron 00:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Frisch

• Sorry about not closing it. I closed one once, and I still have nightmares about it. I feel better if an admin does it. :) Danny Lilithborne 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

P-P-P-Powerbook

Thanks for your comments on the deletion review. A little harsh, but accurate. Aye, I almost certainly would not have seen this debate if it had not been for the notice board thread. Aye, I acted with alacrity. But "jamming?" "Nuking?" ^_^

My only actual complaints are A) I get utterly confused when we both participate in the same threads, and 2) It wasn't my argument for deletion. If requested, I can provide some deletion discussions where in my close I've said "This doesn't have any sources at all, but since no one made that argument, no consensus to delete."

Cheers big ears,
brenneman 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Stress

Sorry to hear that you're stressed out, Aaron. Don't let anyone maky your contributions aren't warented - they surely are! Sometimes people are just in bad moods, but don't let them get you down. Just keep on improving Misplaced Pages like you are! -- Natalya 11:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you're stressed, as well. Best wishes, Fang Aili 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

RfA thanks

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Diane Farrell

Wangi removed the Speedy, which I believe violates process. Are you doing the next step (you left a note at ANI, but I'm not sure where it stands)? Is that DRV or AfD? What's next? I don't understand why one person can overturn a community decision, but that's not my problem, I guess. Sandy 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy: I have put up the DRV at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 8#Diane Farrell. As for why this happened in the first place, easy; an admin can do anything. That's their privilege, of course, just as it is our privilege to request a review of their actions as we are doing here. I understand The wub's rationale for allowing the recreation to stand, but I sure don't agree with it. --Aaron 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-add the speedy tag if you think it's worthwhile. I think this is a clear case of somebody who has become more notable since their AFD delete result and getting tied up with process purely because it's the process isn't going to help matters much and will just tie up folks time. Do you disagree with the notability presented at User talk:The wub#Diane Farrell article (why it should be undeleted)? Thanks/wangi 18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why the speedy tag should be added a fourth time, when it's just going to get ripped off the page again without explanation. See the DRV for the rest of my rationale; she still fails WP:BIO and WP:C&E in my opinion. --Aaron 18:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not going to get into a dither over adding a speedy tag: the bigger issue is why individual decisions are made on IRC, basically invalidating community decisions. This is the kind of thing that makes editors really resentful at admin abuse. It also sets a very bad precedent: what is good for Diane Farrell should now be good for every single candidate who wants to bypass Wiki process by approaching an admin on IRC. EVERY candidate becomes more notable as elections near: that's why the election article is supposed to be created first. Sandy 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think Farrell does not met the criteria for an article. She clearly meets the standard Misplaced Pages criteria for verifiability with reliable sources. She also meets C&E according to the wording of the proposal. I saw the post on AN/I and feel that the deletion policy was misstated there by several people. Seems to me that this started as a misunderstanding about recreating the article mushroomed from there. -FloNight 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi FloNight. I don't think anyone's questioned her verifiability; she obviously is the Democratic candidate in that district. But the existence of the article does violate WP:C&E#Elections first, then individual candidates. Basically, as long as nobody's willing to create Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006, this article isn't supposed to exist. (Unusual, I know, but that's how it's written.) As I posted somewhere in one of these three or four different discussions at this point, I think it's seriously unfair to let this article slide by WP:C&E when other candidates' articles have already been deleted for violating it. That's really my only issue. (I don't think it passes WP:BIO either, at least not the spirit of it, possibly not the letter either; after all, fifty percent of all nominees lose and the majority of them become instant footnotes to history, unworthy of inclusion by default, unless they've done something else notable. I think it's precisely the "multiple article coverage" loophole in WP:BIO that caused WP:C&E to be drawn up in the first place; of course the Republican and Democratic nominees of any House and Senate race are likely to get a lot of articles written about them, but it's ephemeral ... I don't think, in 10 years' time, anyone is going to come here seeking a full-blown biography of Diane Ferrell if she loses, but the way people are interpreting guidelines, she's going to be entitled to one in perpetuity regardless. It just comes off to me as if a lot of people are using Misplaced Pages as a campaign platform, and not only is it working, we're going to be stuck with these articles forever unless WP:C&E is pushed into full guideline status. (And that's a subject on which I admit I haven't spent a lot of time. Perhaps I should.) --Aaron 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron sums it up: the Connecticut election article still hasn't been written, and someone circumvented guidelines by going to IRC, which is unfair to every other candidate in every other election where the "rules" have been followed. If Farrell loses, as the guidelines argue, Wiki is left with a bio entry for every schoolteacher turned small town mayor who can get an advocate to approach an admin on IRC. And still, no CT election article. Sandy 01:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem. C&E does not describe the way that we usually do stuff on Misplaced Pages. That is what policy and guidelines are, a written description of the usual way most editors (or admins) go about writing articles. It seems that C&E says how some editors think we should write articles about canidates. This has never been the way that Misplaced Pages writes policy with very few exceptions where a decisions had to be made to solve a BIG problem. In this case there is no real reason that these article can not be written today and then removed later if needed. The information at that time may go into a different Wikimedia Foundation project, a folk, or be deleted.

Today there is a strong interest in Diane Farrell because she is in an important race. Many people are interested in reading about the person that is challenging a long term incumbent. There is plenty of good encyclopedic material about her so I do not see any reason that she can not have an article. The bit about needing an article about the campaign first is too procedure wonkish and will never work here at Misplaced Pages where the right hand never knows what the left hand does (and probably doesn't want to know either!) I know that you have strong feelings about this and I hate to disagree but I really think you are going against the crowd and what you want will never fly. FloNight 01:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Who (Aaron, me or both)? I don't care what flies in terms of C&E: I care about Wiki business being conducted on IRC. If the "election article first" guideline is a bad one, it should be fixed, in plain sight of everyone. Sandy 02:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You should not be using C&E as policy/guideline because it is not. Most editors never heard of it and do not follow it. It never achived consensus and widespread use. Policy/guidelines are descriptive, written to reflect the reality on the ground. This has nothing to do with IRC and I'm unclear why you keep bringing it up. FloNight 05:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

C&E

I'm under the impression that WP:C&E is only a proposal. Since that's the case, I'm having trouble understanding why you're fighting so hard for rules that are not official policy. Diane Farrell may violate C&E, but deleting it (and other articles) just based on a proposal seems bad for Misplaced Pages. If C&E becomes an official guideline or policy, then feel free to go to town. - Lex 05:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right; it is only a proposal. The problem, IMO, is that it's already been used, and thus I saw it as a fairness issue. (I also find some of the Wikilawyering surrounding this article to be a bit suspect, but that's just my opinion.) In any case, User:SandyGeorgia created the Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006 article, which was the only real violation of WP:C&E that I had a big problem with, and the whole Diane Farrell mess has led to that particular section of WP:C&E to end up back in review anyway (though only in the last ~18 hours), so I've changed my vote to "abstain" on the current AfD. It seems apparent that the AfD will end up closed as "keep", so the issue is settled as far as I'm concerned. --Aaron 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Orchestrated campaign?

Hi Aaron

I noticed your comments on the Sophie McLean deletion debate. Any ideas what to do to resolve the torrent of edits by user:Smeelgova and user: Kat'n'Yarn? I have tried debating with them on the Landmark Education Talk page and elsewhere, but all they do is posture at "being reasonable" while accusing everyone else of vandalism and bad faith, meanwhile immediately reverting any edits made by others which attempt to re-balance their contributions. It's difficult to see this as anything other than an orchestrated campaign with a very specific agenda. DaveApter 18:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Responded on user's talk page. --Aaron 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have had the same issue on anything I done on anything related to these two guys. To read source documents. Find what is written in Wiki to be a POV interpritation of what the source says, or to be factually incorrect and change it results in being reverted back to the stone age It is personally frustrating. My other concern is the large, wholesale cut and pasting of negitive comments under the guise of including all the facts is just #@$% Mark1800 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

That was very kind of you :-) Can I return it LOL !! I *really* don't think I should have had to do that work. And, now that Francisx has her article, she got busy right away reverting sourced commentary she didn't like. <sigh> Anyway, thanks again :-) Sandy 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to find a "Being up to your knees in Wikilawyering BS and smiling as if you actually enjoy it" barnstar, but - surprise - they don't have one for that. ;) --Aaron 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm addressing that incorrect edit on the talk page. It's going to be a very long election cycle if the anon/newbies don't learn how to properly attribute. Sandy 19:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. --Aaron 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggested version is on the talk page (or something like it): it might be worthwhile this early in the game to try to instruct all the new/anon editors about Wiki policies, or the article will end up protected as Lieberman's did in the primary. Some of these editors seem to think people really decide for whom to vote based on every last word in Wiki :-) I was doing so much work on all of the articles last night, cleaning up all three, that I have no idea where I am in terms of 3RR, so I won't be making any changes today, rather working on teaching the newcomers. Sandy 19:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been almost a year since I've had to deal with 3RR, so you'd best read the WP:3RR page to be sure. I think it only applies to reverting the same (or substantially the same) material, so if two different IP editors were after you on two separate areas of the article, I think that means you'd get three reverts for each section, but like I said, I'm really fuzzy on that area. You may want to ask Aaron Brenneman, because I can guarantee you this: People get falsely accused, and falsely blocked, for 3RRs all the time. That one time I did get blocked, it was because an admin misread the history page. (I got unblocked by another admin pretty fast, but it was an unpleasant experience. And once you're blocked, about the only way to get another admin's attention is by - guess what - going onto IRC, since you can't edit anything except your own user page! So be sure you know what you're doing going in, otherwise you may have trouble getting out if you get blocked by mistake. --Aaron 20:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're right on that: and I'm not willing to risk it :-) I'm pretty sure it's 3 reverts, period. Sandy 20:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is three reverts period. There is an exception to 3RR for controversial unsourced or poorly sourced material about a living person. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material. This policy should be your friend while policing campaign election articles and biographies. Best of course to protect the article or block the user or IP. You can leave a message on my talk page or email me if you need help with either of these. FloNight 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, FloNight, appreciated. Right now, I'd like to try to work on educatin' 'em to policies, and we haven't yet gotten into any BLP situations - just repeated deletions of sourced text, and insertions of improperly attributed text. (I'm sure we will, though, at the rate it's going :-) I'm also noticing some possible sock puppetry, but hard to be sure this early. All in all, using this time early on to talk about policy will hopefully pay off in the longrun, but I suspect there are some very passionate editors there, who are convinced that Wiki will affect the election outcome. Thanks again. Sandy 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Escalating incivility. I made the mistake of a long explanation that letters to the editor aren't reliable sources, which got me an accusation of POV for rejecting a non-reliable source. Sandy 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My official request that Aaron Brenneman take some sort of admin action per WP:NPA, now that I've caught the editor in question making blatant, unquestionable lies about me. (See the link.) --Aaron 00:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, she was actually quoting me, but again, not assuming good faith and taking the quote out of context. I said I'd never vote for her, but I'll never vote for any of them: it was a statement of neutrality, and an offer to reference the article if it survived AfD, and I didn't even vote in the AfD. I guess she doesn't recognize neutrality. I've been trying to guide her about Wiki policies, but it's tough: I'm afraid those articles may be destined to become another POV election wasteland. I tried. Sandy 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron: I understand that Francisx is bothering you, but really, all this is is squabble about absolutely nothing. Make sure that you don't let that get in the way of the real goal: building an encyclopedia. --Anaraug 12:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. The BLP violations have already started, along with the failure to assume good faith, deletion of sourced text and insertions of original research and poorly sourced text from non-reliable sources on all 3 articles: Diane Farrell, Christopher Shays, and Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. I was hopeful that things would start slow, and they might learn policy before it got heated. I just keep leaving messages on the article talk pages, explaining policy, but I don't think they are even being read. I agree with the person who said "I hate election articles like a sheep hates shearing:" there doesn't seem to be any understanding or recognition of Wiki policies or encyclopedic content. Yikes, Sandy 06:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks from StuffOfInterest

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gonneke Spits

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices and comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages. If you continue to remove them, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Aaron 16:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't you accomplish your goals of discussion on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gonneke Spits page without personally attacking me? It would certainly be nice to discuss an article on the merits of the article itself, without regard to mudslinging the editor who created said article. I would certainly prefer to have a more cordial relationship with editors of opposing POV's to my own, if they would stop personally attacking me on talk pages and other pages and instead keep to debating the content and issues at hand. The same could be said in your case Aaron: I would love to have a better editing-working relationship with you, but before we even begin to address the issue at hand you seem to wish to attack me and draw attention away from the issues. This is dissapointing and I thought more highly of Misplaced Pages editors to this point. Please, let's all try to be more cordial and work this out. Yours, Smeelgova 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Google bomb article/Quixtar

Thanks for your offer, a third opinion on that would be quite helpful still. The debate still is not resolved, it seemed more that we were at an impasse that just wasn't going to get unblocked between the two of us. It's not an urgent issue though, so I'd rather wait for consensus and mediation then get involved in a reverting war. Seraphimblade 19:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)