Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ocee (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 10 July 2011 (→Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

niobium

Do you mind if I unprotect this, I will keep an eye on the vandalism edits. Usually we keep main page article open in order to encourage new editors. And someone reported being unable to edit at WP:AN/I--BirgitteSB 23:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC) It is both off the main page and unprotected now so nevermind.--BirgitteSB 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

TFA protection

Hi, Ocee. Semiprotecting the main page FA generally isn't done, except in unusual circumstances. You said in your protection summary that the article had been vandalized "dozens" of times since appearing on the main page, but I count only three, which isn't nearly enough to justify protection. Do you have any objections if I go ahead and unprotect this? --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be away, so I'm going to unprotect it (the article I'm talking about is Learned Hand by the way). I'm sorry for not waiting for your reply, but I don't want it to stay semiprotected any longer than it needs to be, especially since it's on the main page. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Bongwarrior (cool name, btw, haha)! Yeah, definitely no worries on the unprotection, if you ever think I'm away and have done something out of sorts, revert away mate. Apologies for the confusion on the edit summary; I had semi-protected the previous three or four day's main page featured articles after they had been vandalised dozens of times, and I accidentally used the same text when typing in the "other reason" (my browser saves what I type in those boxes, and I must have just glossed over it). I figure since the previous several day's featured articles hadn't been vandalised much since I put the semi-protection on, it would be a good idea to semi-protect the main page featured article starting at the beginning of the day. If you'll look back to the main page featured article's this week, you'll see little to no useful content coming from users hiding behind IP's.

Since the main page featured article is supposed to represent some of the best content we have to offer, it only makes sense that when people click on Learned Hand or any other featured article of the day, they should get to learn about the judge, and not be subjected to silliness regarding the size of a part of this chap's anatomy.

Furthermore, since the article is just about as good as it's going to get, as it's been through the FA process and many volunteers have devoted hours upon hours to this article, it is unlikely that it's going to benefit much from one more day's worth of additional content. That is, while I don't think we should semi-protect all featured articles, they can definitely do with being semi-protected for one day.

In addition, that guideline hasn't been discussed in months, and I took the opportunity to be bold. :D Thanks for the note mate! ocee 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would ask that you not semiprotect the main page FA without an urgent, compelling reason to do so. I appreciate your boldness, and your desire to keep the main page featured article accurate, but I don't think that a unilateral decision to automatically apply semiprotection reflects the will of the community or the spirit of the project.

No article is perfect, not even featured articles. If there are some small improvements to be had, there's no reason an IP or new user can't be the one to make the changes, if we allow them the opportunity to do so. And make no mistake about it, anonymous users contribute plenty to the project. It's easy–but incorrect–to assume that the bulk of anonymous users are just vandals "hiding" behind their IPs.

In my mind, the real reason why it shouldn't be semiprotected is because it's not exactly the best way to welcome new users. We'd essentially be saying to them, "Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit. Here's today's featured article. No, you may not edit it." Contradictory, to say the least.

It's not uncommon to see increased levels of vandalism on a main page FA, but that's not always a given. Some days, it's hardly touched at all during its stay on the main page. What is uncommon is for any vandalism to remain there for any length of time. There are plenty of eyes on it, and any vandalism is usually swiftly reverted–for example, the diff that you provided above was reverted one minute later. That said, on occasion semiprotection does become necessary, usually as a result of coordinated off-wiki attacks. I've had to protect it a few times myself, but in those cases a semiprotection of a few hours at most will usually be sufficient.

I'm going to unprotect it again, per currently accepted practice, and ask that you please refrain from protecting these articles in the future. I respect your motives, and you're not alone–there was significant support for your position in a discussion here a while back. If you think that these articles should be automatically semiprotected, a formal RFC on the matter might be the best course of action. Take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey again! Thanks for the note, but I'm not sure if we're on the same page. I actually completely agree with you that anonymous users contribute an enormous amount of time writing quality content and that most users who have registered started out editing anonymously. I definitely don't assume that the bulk of anonymous users are vandals; quite the opposite actually! However, since the featured article of the day is unlikely to be improved much and the clear history that the vast majority of people using IP's to edit that page on that day are doing so to vandalise the page, it only makes sense to keep the article semi-protected. If they'd like to edit the featured article of the day in the future, they can just register an account; it's easy and there's a clear link pointing them towards how to register an account when they find that they are restricted from editing that page.

I appreciate your wiki-ideology and I agree with it to an extent. I think it's great that anyone can volunteer their time to help build an encyclopedia; it's an amazing project and a testament to what can be accomplished when people work together. However, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of pages on the English Misplaced Pages that are protected in some form. I believe that the means justify the ends with regards to semi-protecting the main page, as we are ensured that the article represents the best we have to offer, ensures that the work that the dedicated writers put in won't be besmirched, and also ensures that each visitor gets to read a quality article free of vandalism. I'd be happy to get the community's opinion on the issue, and if it's determined that there's a clear mandate not to semi-protect the main page featured article, well then great! I'm more than happy to follow the community's decision on this, but since WP:NOPRO is only a guideline and there hasn't been much discussion lately, I think that semi-protecting the featured article of the day is definitely the way to go. ocee 16:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to gather some outside opinions here. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You were bold. That's fine. You were reverted. The next step is discussion, not warring over protection. --Onorem♠Dil 04:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring at today's featured article

Regarding , whatever your personal views on protection of the article at WP:TFA, there is no justification to engage in wheel warring over this. Please undo your last protection of this article. Discussion is here. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The protection was undone by another admin. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers mate, thanks for the update! I just made a comment on ANI, and I think we're good now, thanks again and apologies if I've put you out ocee 06:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not about putting me out or anyone else in particular, but rather about WP:WHEEL. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good job

I was reviewing the history of "Sam Blackweter" and noticed that you were one of the few people who opposed his adminship. While not conclusive proof of your savvy it is indeed a very good indicator of your faculties. I can't tell if you are an admin (not sure how to look it up without looking at a userpage), but if you ever apply then send me a line - we need more cautious administrators. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, hey there!!

Hi Ocee. Are you back here now then? - Alison 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it yourself there Alison, how's the crack? ocee 08:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back from me as well. Secret 13:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Really?

You brought back the article International Sport Combat Federation. The "requestor" made it very clear that he has no intention of reading the policies I suggested like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COI etc. Do you see them complying with policies they refuse to read? His "request" was nothing short of a long ranting personal attack. But you just restored the article, not even bothering to caution him about his attacks or that reading the involved policies would be a good idea. That doesn't seem very responsible. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for dropping me a note, but I don't think the fellow was attacking you, hehe. He was just explaining why he feels that his organisation warrants inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps he was a bit exasperated by being lambasted with wiki-bet soup, but that's understandable. As you saw on the talk page, I provided reliable sources, and you have to understand that we're dealing with real people with real concerns, and to shoo them off with thousands of lines of wiki-bet soup is poor form ocee 21:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• He addressed me specifically about things I said in the AfD. "you and the others were rude, insulting and ALL of your claimed accusations were FALSE!!" sounds like he is attacking me. ""YOU" went on to comment; "Interestingly, the 2nd link has nothing more recent than 2007 and the first one shows 2008 as the last event. Truthfully, that makes me feel they are even less notable than before. Niteshift36" How can you make such a comment? YOU haven't even attempted to look into the issue." sounds a lot like he is going after me personally. There is plenty more. Don't excuse his behavior. Telling them the appropriate policies isn't "bad form" at all. It's helpful. What is NOT helpful is his idea that he just doesn't have time to read them. I wonder what they'd tell a fighter in a bout they sanctioned who told them that he doesn't have time to read their rules? Do you think they'd think that was just fine? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Sport Combat Federation

A tag has been placed on International Sport Combat Federation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The org itself isn't a valid reference to establish notability and sherdog.com has been questionable in the past. If you want to tighten the article up, why not do it on a userpage first, then put it in live space. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of International Sport Combat Federation

I have nominated International Sport Combat Federation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Sport Combat Federation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Rather than throw a talkback template, I wanted to let you know that a couple of comments have been made since you posted at my RfA - as well as some questions were asked that specifically related to the 10 month old issue you raised. I'm hoping that I covered the issue in a way that gives you a better idea overall. Let me know if I can answer more. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Opsb logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Opsb logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate, thanks for the heads up! ocee 02:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)