Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) at 11:40, 24 May 2018 (→Arbitration enforcement request: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A goat for you!

Welcome to the retirement home.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

First Ladies - Article for Deletion

Hey Netoholic,

I was hoping you might chime in on this discussion being had in regards to deleting a page for the upcoming Netflix film First Ladies. I created a draft earlier today due to the fact that there is no word that the film has actually begun filming. Noticed later in the day that someone had went ahead and created a article in the mainspace. Hope to get your input in the discussion over at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/First Ladies (film). Thanks, BoogerD (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Heya BoogerD. I'm going to sit out that one, since I think you know which direction I'd go on it and I don't want to run afoul of WP:Canvassing. You might want to give that a read. It gives some good advice on how to neutrally gather attention to discussions like that, such as avoiding posts to individual users (especially those that you suspect will go along with you) in favor of simple, neutral posts to WikiProject pages. I think it'll go you want anyway. Take care. -- Netoholic @ 04:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I'll certainly be cognizant of it going forward. Have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Netoholic, and thank you for your contributions! I noticed your article Passing on the Right and I think it’s a good candidate for Did You Know. DYK is the easiest and funnest way to get your creation on to the Main Page and in front of the eyeballs of 17 million people. Learn all about it here "DYK for Newbies." I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join other people who enjoy editing conservatism-related articles at WikiProject Conservatism! A friendly and fun place where you can can meet new colleagues and get answers to burning questions. I hope to see you there! – Lionel 06:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Lionelt, its still a work in progress. The DYK process is a bit daunting, but if I can think of a good blurb from the article, I'll give it a shot. -- Netoholic @ 06:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you have identified a serious problem with the Political views article with this comment " I also think that, in addition to the studies that prove there is a disproportionate number of leftist in academia compared to the general population, the article should expand on the "bias" part by including more information about the consequences of this imbalance, including the impact on students, research, and culture."

Many of the Oppose votes seemed to object to (1) "liberal" in the title and (2) absence of "American" in the title.

I think the only way to cover the issues you have identified and title the article so that it satisfies future objections is with this DRAFT:Left-wing bias in American academia. Thoughts? – Lionel 06:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Lionelt: Probably not worth it and would be attacked the same way. Should probably work under the current name. Whats more important is to bring more eyes to the article and more voices to the talk page, as more viewpoints bring greater quality. What reduces quality is fractionalization, especially circumstances where discussion is overwhelmingly one-sided. Its better to have everyone in one place rather than two "competing" articles being developed separately. -- Netoholic @ 06:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages

Just FYI, if you have copied significant text from other articles to build Ideological bias on Misplaced Pages you should indicate the source article(s), date, and diff on the Talk page. The template {{Copied}} is useful. See WP:PROPERSPLIT and Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages for more info. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Animalparty:, will do. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Have a cold one--on me--you deserve it! – Lionel 09:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RR

By my count, you are now at 3 reverts in barely over 24 hours at the academic views page. Please be careful not to make another, although you should seriously consider a self-revert of your last one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

I have closed this arbitration enforcement request you submitted warning you not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Misplaced Pages. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor TonyBallioni: - I'd like to make sure there's no room for doubt. Can you better define "use administrative boards to further disputes"? This warning as phrased implies that, within admin boards, I am essentially IBAN'd from everyone I've ever had something vaguely definable as a "dispute" with because they could just claim I'm "furthering" a prior dispute. -- Netoholic @ 04:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It means that if you are in a content dispute or other personal dispute with someone, you should not use administrative boards to try to get them sanctioned unless there is something that is actually actionable. I think NeilN actually summed it up best, and I'll tweak it a bit here: before submitting a complaint to AE, ANI, ANEW, etc. read it three times, possibly save it in an email draft, take a walk, and if it still seems like a big enough deal after that, then move forward. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor TonyBallioni: - I'll be very honest, I thought the last one was actionable. I was mistaken apparently, and I saw NeilN's advice. From what you're saying, though, it sounds like its a warning about opening a request... but the warning reads use an admin board. Does this mean I can never comment on anyone else's report? Does it mean I can't express an opinion on an already open case? Even if it is only about opening a report, it certainly as worded has a major chilling effect and essentially prevents me from ever opening one - even if its as clear as possible to me to be legitimate, someone will inevitably cite this warning and claim is "furthering the dispute". -- Netoholic @ 04:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum: That includes the fact that I can never, ever open an appeal to have this limitation removed. -- Netoholic @ 04:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a logged warning, not an IBAN of TBAN. It just means use commonsense and don’t act in a way where a reasonable person could believe you are acting to further a personal feud. If you’ve been fighting with someone and just brought them to a noticeboard a few days ago, and no one else has thought to do it again, they likely aren’t acting in a sanctionable way.Logged warnings are AE sanctions, and you can appeal them to AE or AN if you want, but unless they are way out of line there isn’t much point (that’s me speaking practically and not as the sanctioning admin). There was a consensus the complaint wasn’t actionable, and support for a logged warning at AE, so I don’t think it likely AN would overturn, especially as it is just a log entry with no real restrictions beyond what is expected of all editors. If you do decide to appeal, I would suggest AN as it was just at AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor TonyBallioni: - I know its a warning, but can be used to legitimize a block or ban years down the line. It represents a major chilling effect that essentially bans me from admin boards. The warning as worded also doesn't say anything about whether my use of an admin board has to be "actually actionable". I could be blocked for simply opening a request, even a 100% valid one, because it could be seen as me "furthering" a dispute. Look, I genuinely do get the message and I totally see what you intend it to mean. I hope you just see my concern with the current wording and the way it can be easily misunderstood by future admins. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If you get it, you will be fine. Part of the purpose of a logged warning is to document it so if similar behavior occurs in the future it can be shown that chances were given, so you are right in a way. On the flip side, admins tend to hate sanctioning experienced editors more than you know and are also pretty good at calling out frivolous complaints. If you follow the advice NeilN and I gave you, you should be fine. It’s really not that big of a deal as AE actions go: just think twice as if something really needs to be said before posting it. That’s good advice for everyone, and it works here too. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor TonyBallioni: - Fundamentally, as worded, I can never take the chance by using any admin board in any way out of fear someone will cite that prior warning and claim I am "furthering a dispute". I would simply have to avoid them to remove any possibility of repercussions on myself. Trust me, the message is received here. But I would ask you to remove the warning as worded to eliminate all doubt, since only 3 of 6 admins in that AE recommended a warning, and 2 of those advised a warning not to "abuse" (not "use" as you implemented), and only 1 of the admins mentioned "administrative processes", the other two mentioned AE by name. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I’m not removing it, and I liked MastCell’s wording the best so I went with it. This is a warning, not a ban, and if it gets you to be more careful, it’s doing its job. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)