Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Causa sui (talk | contribs) at 02:24, 30 July 2011 (→Lewontin's fallacy: Comment and close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Causa sui's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 1 day

http://en.wikipedia.org/Chandler_School

If you are going to revert edits without even looking at the content you're reverting, you don't deserve to be calling yourself an editor. Every edit attempted today on the Chandler School page has been relevant and accurate. There are only so many ways to write factual information that only exists in the school's archive. On top of this, the section "Technology Curriculum" quotes nothing directly from the school, along with the fact that the references included show the information is accurate and not biased. The edits to the section regarding athletics made it more readable, including the removal of redundant "sports" such as inline skating, which is included under the umbrella of roller hockey, as well as the correction of "paddle pennis" to "paddle tennis." If there is something wrong with an individual component, you should address that, especially when previously mentioned issues have been corrected (with the inclusion of appropriate references). Reverting a correction to a word that looks conspicuously like "penis" smacks much more of vandalism than an attempt to prevent vandalism.

Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey

Hi Causa sui. I am inquiring regarding your decision to close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey (2nd nomination) as "Keep". As your closing did not provide a rationale of how the participants' arguments were weighted, I am uncertain why the consensus was considered keep when User:Muboshgu and myself did not see evidence of GNG being met. Moreover, a legitimate concern was raised that GNG expects that multiple sources of significant—not routine—coverage exists, and the discussion to-date only unveiled one such source as a candidate. While there were more !votes to keep, I believe that the arguments were either not based on policy (i.e. there is no cited policy or guideline that a minor league president, manager, or All-Star is inherently notable) or was based on unsubstantiated claim that GNG was met when multiple sources have not been cited as requested in the discussion. Can you discuss your decision to "Keep"? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Do you want to discuss it here, or do you think I should add my rationale to the AFD? I ask because the AFD is more "official" but doesn't offer you a clear channel for discourse. causa sui (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If dont mind discussing here first, and updating AfD later if needed. —Bagumba (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All right. Here we go.

• The first thing I considered is the previous AFD. You're right that prior discussions are not binding; but at the same time, they are not irrelevant. That a previous AFD closed as keep, and the only changes in the circumstances since then would only increase the notability of the subject, tilts the scales a bit.
• Second, the rationales of the keep !voters could be condensed into the opinion that his work as league president, manager, and minor-league umpire established the notability of the subject. You objected that there is nothing in the notability policy that explicitly includes such a criterion. Note that Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules and the spirit of the rule carries over its literal wording. Crucially, several editors disagreed with you, concluding that the coverage was not routine and did meet the GNG and BASEBALL/N. While you might think their interpretation of policy was off-base, I was disinclined to make a personal judgment about that while closing. Also, while some keep !voters did not specifically cite any links to policy, they did answer the notability question in the affirmative.
• Third, the rationale of the delete !voters cemented my perception that there were no unaddressed objections.

You're right that AFD is not a vote and we are not a democracy. But where it comes down to a "yes it is" vs "no it isn't" and both sides seem to think policy is on their side, a closing admin in my position will have to contort himself quite a bit to come down on the short side of the debate, especially considering the previous AFD. I hope that helps. Regards, causa sui (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I do appreciate all the factors that must be consider while closing. Here are my responses to your above points:

• Previous AfD: Im OK if this was a minor and not a major factor, as you seemed to indicate when saying it "tilts the scales a bit." The previous AfD had only 2 !votes for keep after one relisting:

1. A procedural vote saying the nominator was not decisive enough (but didnt cite any merits of the article to keep)
2. A !vote to keep based on the person's accomplishments (no guidelines or policies cited, I guess WP:IGNORE was the assumption?)

• Notability: There is not much to argue if WP:IGNORE is the reasoning. However, I would expect this in cases where WP:LAWYERING was occurring or the spirit of WP was being violated or was unclear. WP:BASEBALL/N was very clear in saying "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." If you considered this a new consensus that was forming, it would be helpful if this was included in the AfD's closing rationale that it was contrary to existing guideline. For the record on the 5 !votes to keep,

1. 4 !votes were essentially of the same as last time variety of "he was league president and managerial career and minor league all-star appearances"
2. Only 2 of the 5 !votes mentioned GNG, but in a WP:VAGUEWAVE: DJSasso and Agent Vodello. In facr, Agent Vodello said the subject "did enough beyond just being a player" to satisfy GNG, but GNG has nothing to do with a person's accomplishments but rather depends on what type of significant coverage reliable, independent sources are giving. Again, you would recommend I WP:IGNORE.

I can only see a clear consensus to keep if WP:IGNORE was the main consideration. If so, it would be helpful to include in the AfD for other AfDs or WP:NSPORT discussions to reference. Otherwise, I dont see a clear consensus to keep yet. Thanks—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your disagreement is clearly in good faith. If you disagree with my close, you are sincerely welcome to bring it up on WP:DRV. causa sui (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and the suggestion. —Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Chandler School

Causa sui,

As per the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ukexpat#Chandler_School, the content dispute has been resolved. Please unlock the Chandler School page for normal editing. Thank you. 66.214.44.226 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC) 66.214.44.226

Please?66.214.44.226 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)66.214.44.226

I'll take a look at it soon. I have to say that I'm less than impressed with the consensus building efforts of the IPs in that dispute, who seem to have "won" by badgering ukexpat (talk · contribs) and attacking his character until he gave up and walked away in disgust. causa sui (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While that is understandable with respect to tone, you might notice that ukexpat (talk · contribs) actually caused much of the problem by continuously reverting to a much lower quality page vaguely citing "copyvio" without any specific references, as well as continuously misusing the "notability" requirement. If you're trying to build out content on a page, giving someone more than two minutes kind of helps a bit. The anonymous school user did attempt to address many of ukexpat's issues with the page although they were marked simple reversions, but again, he simply changed all of it back to almost nothing more than a simple list of athletic activities the school provides. This is not behavior that helps improve pages, and these specific problems were definitely pointed out to him, with no response beyond deciding he just didn't "give a shit" any more. Markushopkins (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Anya Verkhovskaya

Hello,

Do you have any evidence that the user trying to blank this article is actually the subject of the article? Isn't OTRS the proper and well-established procedure for such matters? Cullen Let's discuss it 05:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than her claims to be, no I don't. causa sui (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that two users are claiming to be her and/or represent her. Perhaps you, as an administrator, might consider referring those users to WP:OTRS, and withdraw your AfD nom until we hear from OTRS. Just a suggestion. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll consider referring them to OTRS, though one need not be an administrator to do that. I don't intend to withdraw the AFD, though. causa sui (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Lynn

remember Noq tried to delete Connswater, and when you gave me permission he did it again, well now he has nominated another one of my articles for deletion and i think im being victimised. Earlier today he nominated the subject page for speedy deletion that was declined, but now he has nominated it for deletion again and i was wondering if anything could be done EastBelfastBoy (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jack Mealey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jack Mealey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting saddle, causa. However, as ** I ** was the one requesting protection, the template seemed a bit much. I have initiated discussion on the talk page. I would recommend that you also observe stirrup, where similar issues may be cranking up. So far no revert warring, though. Montanabw 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While it's good that you requested protection to end the edit war, you also participated in it. Edit warring is never acceptable regardless of whatever other steps you have taken. Follow dispute resolution from square one. Regards, causa sui (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, point accepted, but I did ask the other user to take the issue to talk in the edit summaries (I think a couple of times) and did initiate the discussion at talk when I also requested page protection. Do watchlist the talk page if you don't mind. Oh, and add pack saddle to the list because that one's starting there, too. The other use clearly has a POV that is being pushed across multiple articles (judging by the user's talk page) and I have relatively little patience with that ilk. Montanabw 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Depth of field

It seems odd to jump in and do a major revert and then protect of an article that has had exactly one reverted edit in over a week. What's up with that? Dicklyon (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Slow-moving revert war over images requested on WP:RFPP. causa sui (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Still, seems odd. And why revert before locking? Not that it matters much in this case. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PREFER: "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Hope that helps. causa sui (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made that revert, personally, if I were the admin doing that, but, causa sui knows more about this dispute than I do and I'm respecting his/her judgement on this. BTW, I'm the one who made the request at RFPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't know much about it, which is why I reverted to the last protected revision (effectively deferring to MuZemike). If either of you have an argument for another revision, have at it. causa sui (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was stable at a consensus version for over a week until the guy came along and inserted the picture of his cat again. That's all. No reason to roll back to an old version. No reason to protect, either, since the guy took me up on my invitation to take it to the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Dick has it exactly right. After the last similar edit war, this issue was carefully discussed—far more so than is normal for Misplaced Pages, and a few changes were made reflecting that consensus. Jamesington’s edit clearly ignored that consensus, which was more than simply a matter of which images to use—some images were moved around and captions changed to better illustrate points discussed in the article. It’s a shame to have that undone because of one editor who has contributed absolutely nothing to the article. JeffConrad (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I've reverted to m:The Wrong Version ;) causa sui (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems more appropriate. A few more days of protection won't bother anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

YGM

By the way...

Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Flylanguage

Hi, I noticed you closed several of the AfD's created by User:Flylanguage. While they were bad faith nominations, some of the discussions were gaining a strong consensus to delete. Perhaps they should be reopened/renominated/speedied? Cheers, —Ruud 11:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair point. Point them out and I could reopen them with you as the nominator. causa sui (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RPP full protection template

Hey there! Just in case you didn't realise, if you use {{rfpp|p|3 days}} rather than {{rfpp|f|3 days}}, the template will stop showing the redundant 3 days as in this edit. Took me a while to work that one out, don't know why it abbreviates down to p rather than f, but there we go! Thanks for your help at RPP, great to have another RPPing admin around :) GedUK  11:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, and was mystified by it too. Thanks for doing the legwork. Any way the template can be fixed? causa sui (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it's technically broken. I think the intention in using the 'f' is to allow comments within the template; I think that was the preferred style in previous years more than it is now. As to fixing it, no idea, templates are a bit beyond me. I guess have a look on that template's discussion page, see if anyone's around? GedUK  18:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, you already went above and beyond. I'll just use {{RFPP|p}} from now on. Thanks! causa sui (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Harold E. Glass

Hello, I was wondering why the Harold E. Glass was deleted? I was in the process of trying to fix it up to clear all those comments out. Thanks, Mshaub (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) --> —Mshaub

Hi, I deleted the article in accordance with the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_E._Glass. You might want to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Deletion for an explanation of the deletion process. If you think you can make an article that is consistent with the requirements for inclusion, you can draft it at WP:AFC where experienced editors will help you get the article into acceptable condition before it is reinstated. Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kite (programming language)

Would you mind closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kite (programming language), nominated by the same blocked user as the other two you closed? Thanks. "Pepper" 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A bit before you, another user is asking me to reopen the debates where there was forming consensus to delete. I'm thinking he's probably right, per WP:SK. What do you think? causa sui (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I did see that there was a consensus forming, but it doesn't feel right that an indef-blocked user nominated them... kind of like WP:CSD#G5 maybe...? I think a simple renomination by a user in better standing would be best. "Pepper" 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that the user is now community banned due to the uncontroversial indefblock. That was pretty much the rationale in my mind when I closed the ongoing AFDs. It's a funny test case. Maybe I should post the story on WP:AN to get some opinions. causa sui (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith

I appreciate that you protected this page. However, only 1 minute before you did the offending editor did undid the page that the four other edits reach a consensus on. Would it be possible and appropriate to ask you to undo the last change and return the page to here and then protect the page.

I have no idea if this request is even appropriate, so please tell me. If I am doing something wrong I want to now so I can never do it again.20:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTEST4ECHO (talk • contribs)

See m:The Wrong Version and WP:PROTECTION. Protection is not an endorsement of the current page revision. If another administrator who knows more about the dispute feels that there is a compelling reason to select another revision, that would be up to his or her prerogative to revert through protection. Regards, causa sui (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I will not make a request like this again.--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 20:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who don't request page protection often, I honestly didn't know how taboo this kind of request was and it came back to bit me almost immediately. I have therefore made a minor request to adjust the page to make it clearer to smucks like me. I would love to have your input here--ARTEST4ECHO (/_contribs) 23:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		Civility Award
		For reinforcing the assumption of good faith at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 28#Jack Mealey —Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on IP complaint at incident

Technically that would be him: spectare Causa Sui in falsificatum speculum. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlowhandBlue (talk • contribs) 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lewontin's fallacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You recently closed the AfD on Lewontin's fallacy. User:Maunus, in conjunction with User:AndyTheGrump have now moved the article to Lewontin's Argument, which completely changes the subject of the article, as it is meant to be about an academic paper that is a response to Lewontin's Argument and not Lewontin's argument itself. That's a different article that is yet to be written. When I pointed this out, the two of them in this section here started saying that the subject of the academic paper is non-notable, which is against the consensus in the AfD, and that the title of the paper is not neutral, even though the title is what it is. My proposal is to move the title to Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy, which is the full title of the paper, as that should minimize the confusion or any POVness about calling it just a fallacy. However, that title has already been made a redirect and requires an administrator to delete it in order for it to be moved. Can you do this? Silverseren 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And now they are trying, in this series of edits] to make the subject of the article be about Lewontin's paper, which is an entirely different subject and, as discussed at the AfD, should be in a different article. Silverseren 01:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that 'they' have done no such thing. My only edit to the article since I proposed it for AfD on the 11th of July was my addition of the {{POV-title}} template - and note that this issue was debated even before the AfD, and that User:Miradre (a major contributor, and vocal supporter of the article) stated that he would "quickly change the title" - this was in March, and nobody seems to have objected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't intend enforce the AFD closure or act in future content disputes related to the article. If another user feels that some content changes are inappropriately in contradiction to the AFD discussion, they are welcome to enforce them as they see fit, and through the usual channels. Regards, causa sui (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)