Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 26 May 2010 (→Sanctions: - oh, just go away - I have no time to argue with you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21 / /Archive 22 / /Archive 23 / /Archive 24 / /Archive 25 / /Archive 26 / /Archive 27 / /Archive 28 / /Archive 29

Please add new comments below.

Incidentally

When is the inexplicable removal of the responses of scientists and scientific organisations going to be undone? I've discussed this on the talk page and there seems to be no significant opposition, and without recording that huge and ongoing response our article lacks the balance necessary to make sense of the subsequent vindications. The inquiry findings are unsurprising to those who are aware of this perspective, but have obviously caught many observers unaware. We need to permit the reader to see how the inquiries follow a path dictated by the scientific illiteracy of the trumped up charges, which were recognised very early on by those competent to do so. Tasty monster (=TS ) 01:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos. You have been involved with this issue in the past, perhaps you could help with investigation. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted a query, below your comment, at that page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

3 of 4

Quite right. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Morganna_the_kissing_bandit.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Morganna_the_kissing_bandit.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Morganna

On May 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Morganna, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Angela Christine Smith

Are her expenses notable? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:GS/CC/RE

I closed the climate change probation enforcement request against you as No further action needed. As noted in the discussion section, being more careful in your future editing would be appreciated, though. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

please restore cited material

You just deleted whole-sale entire paragraphs that were cited with the rationale of "completely rewritten section; serious BLP issues with previous content." Such extensive rewriting should be done by consensus, at least before deleting 5 paragraphs. Can you please restore the edit? This version was far superior and much easier to navigate. Now the SA section is one big cluster that is very hard to read. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read my reply on the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Goldstone. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. the material you removed is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced, it was sourced to the leadign newspapers in Israel, as well as to the Jewish Chron. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You evidently missed the fact that the Chomsky paragraph is sourced to his own personal website, in contravention of WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources, and the Derschowitz claim is simply defamatory. If you restore it again you will be taken to arbitration enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You've removed much more than the Chomsky paragraph, and the rest of your deletions were of material sourced to Yediot, Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post - all of which are reliable sources. I've reported you for edit warring. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR at Richard Goldstone

Hi, you have violated WP:3RR at Richard Goldstone. I recommend that you self-revert yourself, otherwise I will be reporting you for edit warring. Breein1007 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is at arbitration enforcement now - see WP:AE#Wikifan12345. I'm obviously not going to revert to a version that contains serious BLP violations. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I am forced to take it to the edit warring board. Also, I see that you have notified someone of the discretionary sanctions. You will notice that at the bottom of that message, it says that administrators are intended to be giving out that notification. Breein1007 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Momma's Little Helper is a relatively new editor, s/he needed to be aware of those sanctions. That's now been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the notification makes it very clear that admins are intended to inform editors of those sanctions, and then record the notification on the appropriate page. As you are not an admin, I will suggest that in the future you ask an admin to give the notification if you feel the user needs to be made aware. While we're on the topic, have you been made aware of the sanctions? If not, I think an admin needs to officially do that. Breein1007 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was involved in enforcing the sanctions as an admin. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bishop Hill blog

Chris, I favor merger of this blog article to the Montford article, and I also believe that it is so lacking in notability that it needs to be stripped to its bare essentials in any merger. However, it is by no means a certainty that the article on this blog is going to be merged. There is even sentiment for merging Montford into this blog article. If this article survives, it needs to be a fair and balanced article, and currently it reads like hagiography. I hope you'll reconsider removing the description of the blog in that British blog book, as it adds balance to an article that sorely needs it. Thanks, ScottyBerg (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

request for arbitration

Hi, I see you are the leader of the Kosovo Wikiproject, I would like some advice on this : Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Districts_of_Kosovo_in_Serbia

I have created a bunch of issues to look into and would like some guidance. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Kosovo/Attention_needed

thanks, mike James Michael DuPont 16:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Thames tunnels.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thames tunnels.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

File source problem with File:Ikbrunel.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Ikbrunel.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock 03:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd's of London

I feel Talk:Lloyd's_of_London#Slavery_Denial the slavery link does not merit the WEIGHT it is presently given. Please would you consider this, if time allows. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

-- Kittybrewster ☎ 09:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:110.137.33.20

Every edit by this IP seems to be a hoax + vandalism. They all need reverting and he needs blocking. All are unreferenced and unverifiable. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vipera palaestinae

It makes no sense to list Israel and Palestine if you are assuming that "Palestine" refers to the geographical region. The source is clearly referring to the Palesitnian territories, and they simply made a mistake in their terminology. Just as you said about Goldstone, there is no reason why we should carry through a clear error from a source. This harms the integrity of our encyclopedia. Breein1007 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a reply to the article talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't post a response... you didn't address the issue. You just repeated something irrelevant. Writing Israel and Palestine is one of two things. A) Superfluous or B) Against NPOV policies. Take your pick. In any case, I responded on the article talk page. Breein1007 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You still failed to address the issue, and posting a notice on the No Original Research board is an interesting choice. Anyway, I won't be violating WP:3RR, but I hope you will consider the edit you have put into place and think carefully about whether or not you want your record to show an example of such POV-pushing. Because now that I have made it very clear to you that the author could not have logically been referring to Palestine as a geographic region, it is clear that you are supporting the use of the term "Palestine" to refer to the "Palestinian territories". Breein1007 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm supporting nothing of the sort. The basic facts are not in dispute. The source clearly does not use the terminology you want to use; changing cited text to fit your own political views is emphatically not allowed. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources can be found that call the Gaza War a massacre. This doesn't mean that we refer to it on Misplaced Pages as such. Doing so would violate Misplaced Pages policies. Your edit does the same thing. Breein1007 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a complete different issue of conflicting POVs. One side calls it a massacre, the other has a different POV. I note that our Gaza War article refers to both POVs, as it should. That has nothing to do with the issue here, which is whether editors should be able to "correct" sources that they think are wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is an identical issue, actually. If we used a source like Al Jazeera for info on the Gaza War, we would not call it a massacre, even though Al Jazeera does. The article Palestinian territories makes mention of the fact that some people refer to it as "Palestine". Just like the Gaza War article mentions that some people use the word "massacre". This has everything to do with the issue here. Breein1007 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone

Hi Chris, I took a bit closer look at the article today. On its face I see really no particular issues with it, except there are some segments I think may be really too long -- so much exposition that at points it approaches repetitious. Classic signs of too much research to try to shoehorn into a format! Other than that, I don't particularly see any text that needs to be changed. But, with that being said, I am not really familiar enough with this subject to know whether there are any holes in the story that need to be plugged, either. That's why I am really hoping that the detractors at the article's talk page will make a genuine attempt at polite discussion about portions they dislike, with proposed changes. Maybe they'll be valid suggestions and maybe they won't, but in any case for now I will continue trying to entice them into productive discussions and hope it bears fruit. Thanks again. — e. ripley\ 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)