Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benjiboi (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 2 December 2009 (→Complete Idiot's Guides: ty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Noticeboard archives

• v
• t
• e

Request for advice re. an issue raised about Sabi the war dog

Can we have some eyes on Talk:Sabi_(dog)#Accuracy_of_some_of_the_content. Even with two years wiki experience, I am still not totally familiar with what to do with these sorts of situations, so if anyone has some relevant experience, pls advise. MickMacNee (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merlin_(TV_series) episode articles

Each of the episodes of the British TV show Merlin (linked from the page List_of_Merlin_episodes) includes an extensive plot summary. A few of these articles are tagged with maintenance templates, but since the same issues apply to all of them (and because I'm not sure how to resolve the problem), I'm bringing the issue up here. There are a couple of (nested) issues I see:

• The summaries are overly long and unencyclopedic (see WP:PLOT). This would argue for the removal of the summaries (and their reduction to stubs, as there is little contnet remaining in them)
• None of the articles appear (caveat: I havent read them all) to have any sources discussing the episode per se, the critical reaction, etc. Since they appear to fail WP:N, perhaps they should be deleted entirely?

I'd appreciate the input of other editors about how to proceed. — æk 03:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tags at Alford articles

An editor added {{contradict}} tags to the tops of articles North Carolina v. Alford and Alford plea, back when both articles were in a poor state as far as sourcing. I have since gone and made sure that every single sentence in both articles is backed up to sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V.

Billyboy01 said the tag should be removed at North Carolina v. Alford in a comment at the talk page, Oppose contradiction tag for this article. And Brumski acknowledged that I have significantly improved the article Alford plea, in a comment to the talk page - with edit summary, The sources directly support the text.

Question: Can the tags now be removed from these 2 improved articles? Cirt (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're confident you've brought them in line, be bold and remove the tags. bd2412 T 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried that. The tags were reverted back, by Redheylin (talk · contribs). Perhaps you could step in and assess the situation? Cirt (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Removed the tag, per Talk:North_Carolina_v._Alford#Contradiction_tag. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Alford plea and evidence

Related to the above inquiry, I actually came to post a request for input on the underlying content dispute over the Alford plea article and the Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) article. As I understand it, the issue is whether it's fair to say that this type of guilty plea, made while maintaining innocence, is always employed when there is likely to be sufficient evidence to convict or whether it can be used for other reasons. In particular, in Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) case, he claims that he was left no choice because he would have been held for years if he did not plead guilty, so even if he eventually won at trial, there was not a reasonable choice but to plead guilty.

In the Alford plea article, some sources have been added referring to "sufficient evidence", but many articles don't note that element as part of the definition, and I'm wondering if some legal minded or interested parties independent of the current dispute would have a look into the issue and see if some clarification or qualification is needed to note that there may be reasons for an Alford plea other than sufficient evidence, or if the present wording is correct and accurate. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Alford plea always means the defendant acknowledges there is sufficient evidence to convict, and is pleading guilty to avoid a harsher sentence were they to plead not guilty and go to trial. This is all covered by many WP:RS sources in the article itself. A third-party editor already did weigh in, on this very issue, at the article's talk page. There was no need to bring it here. See this comment by Brumski: the sources provided do directly support the text "the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and so there is no hint of original research and not even of any interpretation of the sources (instead the text is just a direct reflection of what they explicitly say - the defendant "allows", "concedes", "admits" and "admits"), there is no falsification or bogus sources and there is no problem, except that someone who's put a lot of good work into very significantly improving this article has had to waste their time defending their improvements. I'm sorry Redheylin, the fact that this article defines the Alford plea in a way that is inconvenient for your dispute elsewhere isn't relevant to this article; what is is relevant is whether it reflects the reliable sources, which it does.. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree there a many sources noting an Alford plea as a protestation of innocence where there is likely to be sufficient evidence to convict. There are also quite a lot of sources that seem to indicate it is sometimes used to avoid a trial or employed for other reasons. Here's a contemporaneous story from when the supreme court ruled on this type of plea and, although only the headline and a snippet are visible, it seems to indicate that the original reason the Alford plea was used was to avoid a trial and the possibility of a death sentence. "The Supreme Court Monday approved guilty pleas offered by defendants who protest their innocence but who enter the plea to avoid a trial and the possibility of a death sentence." Whether this is a significant distinction seems worth considering. I'm just trying to get some input apart from you and Redheylin who have been in dispute over this issue. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a distinction. See also Talk:Alford_plea#What_the_sources_actually_say. The ruling that created this itself necessitated that the defendant be made aware they are making this form of guilty plea due to evidence that could be used to convict them. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: See this comment by Brumski. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Territories and crimes of the Russian Mafia - admin involvement requested

Russian Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article's infobox contains both an uncited 'Territory' list and an uncited and absurdly long 'Criminal activities' list. The Territory list is subject to random expansion by IP editors who take some sort of pride in adding their own nationality to the list. The 'Criminal activities' list is a menu-like offering that includes just about every crime that exists; this is also subject to random expansion as someone thinks up new crimes to add.

Some of the 'Notable Russian mafiosi' named in the article would seem to be still alive and thus subject to our BLP policies were they not gangsters and if crimes charged in the infobox are assumed to apply across the entire article. I'm not bothered by the BLP aspects, but since it is unlikely that either of these ever-changing lists can find support in reliable sources (and in part because the criminal activities list makes WP look rather silly), I've tried listing Territories as simply "Worldwide" and Criminal activities as simply "Various and sundry violent crimes, property crimes, public order crimes, political crimes". I keep getting reverted by IPs in Russia whose pride I assume I have wounded. Offending possibly dangerous people is above my pay grade here, so I'm requesting administrator involvement. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

leon russell

i remember years ago reading that leon was born in 1929 not 1942 and ive seen vidio of him from the 1950`s i remember this clearly because my father was born in 1929 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.255.238 (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. If you have evidence from a reliable published third-party source (e.g., a book or a magazine or newspaper article), then feel free to update the article with the correct information and indicate the source. — Cheers, JackLee 05:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for deletion of File:Pollock31.jpg

This the first time I have encountered this. I uploaded the referenced file (after photoshopping to lighten and straighten) and have the original with its Metadata. Somebody is accusing it of being stolen http://brooksdierdorff.blogspot.com/2009/12/most-viewed-dierdorff-photo-everrrr.html This is baseless and they have offered no proof and they have not demonstrated how I would have accessed it. The metadata on the original confirms my timeline. Still it has thrown me into a rage and poisoned my willingness to upload photos (I have uploaded a lot). My knee jerk reaction is to request the photo be deleted. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that. If you really wish to have the image deleted, remove it from the article "Jackson Pollock" and tag the image description page with {{db-unfree}} (all fair-use images must be used in at least one article). It will be then deleted by an administrator. — Cheers, JackLee 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I long ago quit doing fair use. It's too much hassle. The license was changed by someone else after I uploaded it so it's probably just as well. It is eye opening though. Thanks again for your prompt help. I have followed your instructions. Americasroof (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, it's much easier dealing with freely licensed images at the Commons. I try to avoid non-free images wherever I can. — Cheers, JackLee 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Complete Idiot's Guides

There's a massive list of these Complete Idiot's Guides in a drop-down box at the bottom of the article. It seems odd but maybe it's ok. Any ideas? -- Banjeboi 03:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, it seems to be the vast majority of the article. I found it while searching on Google for something else. -- Banjeboi 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing the math it seems it's 44.5 k of content. -- Banjeboi 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Banjeboi 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem article Sri Kripalvananda

A half-dozen or so newly registered and non-registered editors have been removing sourced material from Sri Kripalvananda

and replacing it with un-sourced and inappropriate material.

I'd guess they are religious "true believers," and not actually interested in Misplaced Pages. But I might thereby violate the "good faith" policy....

Frankly, I'm not that keen on the topic per se (though I created the article) and I sense this could be a hopeless situation.

Off hand, I'd suggest deleting the article, though on what basis I'm not sure.

Each of these editors have contributed soley to article in question. Two have reverted brief neutral comments I've placed on its talk page. None have responded to brief, polite requests for discussion.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a request for the page to be semi-protected, which should cut down on the spamminess. You might want to take a look at the concerns about the article I placed on the talk page, as it seems the SPAs and IPs have a legitimate issue with the way the article is framed, though they have chosen an inappropriate way to express it. — æk 07:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary protocol

The issues of this article are extensively documented in edit summaries and on the talk page. In my view (though I am not uninvolved) WP:OWN and WP:NPOV are the major concerns. I provided a third opinion in February, and after my suggestions were reverted I walked away. The article has not improved since, in fact, another author just entered the same cycle of researching, adding info, edit war, walking away.

I'm a bit clueless now as to what to do with it. I promised to come back after a year but the article is still in the same sorry state. Ideas? --Pgallert (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards