Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:18, 9 November 2007

Archives

Description of archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

John Marshall Harlan II

Have you forgotten about this article? Ruslik 12:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I've been waiting for a book I've sent for to arrive, plus dealing with candidate questions, but I'm certainly going to be working on it soon. :) Newyorkbrad 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom election

Hey man, I saw that the ArbCom elections were coming up and thought of you. I don't think we've spoken before, but I see your contributions in many places and am frequently struck by your eloquence and level-headedness. I was going to ask you if you'd consider running, and I'm really glad to see that you already are! I wish you the very best of luck! GlassCobra 14:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious, if you become an arbitrator, will you still be a clerk on the committee?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I would not continue to hold the title of clerk if I were elected as an arbitrator (this is precisely as happened with FloNight last year). I would expect to continue working closely with the clerks, though, and probably would remain more attentive to the clerical aspects of the decision-making than some of the other arbitrators, just because it's in my nature. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I'm not a bit worried about your temperment, which is nothing short from calm, civil, friendly, and level-headed.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Assistance sought regarding article reversion

Dear Brad,

As the author of a Misplaced Pages article on Ostad Elahi (1895-1974), a contemporary Persian philosopher, jurist, and musician, I’d like to seek your advice on an ongoing situation involving a user who is only identified by an IP address. Since early 2007, this user has made three reversions to the article and the discussion page, without any supporting references, on the sole basis that the article should be identified under Ostad Elahi’s birth name of “Nur Ali Elahi” and not “Ostad Elahi” (incidentally, the birth name is listed in the first sentence of the article).

Each time such a reversion has occurred, I have sought to set forth the reasons why the article should be identified under the name “Ostad Elahi,” including the fact that he was referred to as Ostad Elahi both during his lifetime and posthumously, and have corroborated these reasons with numerous sources and references.

In response to the most recent reversion on October 12, 2007, I have just added a comprehensive response with references as to why the article is, and should remain, under the name of Ostad Elahi, and I have re-posted my deleted postings on the discussions page that address this same issue.

Assuming that this user decides to once again delete all of my comments on the discussion page and redirect/rename the article “Nur Ali Elahi”—which would delete all of the incorporated references in the process—what would you advise that I do?

Any guidance would be much appreciated.

Thank you, Global.wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.wiki (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You could consider requesting a third opinion on the best article name from another editor and trying to build consensus that the article is at the correct location. At that point, you could request an administrator to move-protect the article, meaning that it could not be moved again without a consensus to do so. I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

But you are wrong. His name was Nur Ali Elahi, please don't try to chage history. Ostad means master in the Farsi language and you know that. There is nothing in print in the 1920s,30s,40s,50s,60s, and up to 1974 when he died with the name Ostad Elahi, but there are hundreds of pages printed in the 1920s-2007 with the name Nur Ali Elahi. ALL THE BOOKS HE WROTE IN FARSI ARE PUBLISHED WITH HIS NAME, NUR ALI ELAHI, NOT OSTAD ELAHI.--Persianhistory2008 14:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just answering a procedure question and have no expertise to offer concerning which name the article should be under. (Of course, there will be redirects either way, anyway.) Perhaps a request for comment or a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves might garner more input on this issue. Newyorkbrad 14:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Global.wiki, I also see in the page history that you have deleted many other individuals write ups on the discussion board. That is strictly against Misplaced Pages policy.--Persianhistory2008 14:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As you probably realize, I am not an arbitrator (active or otherwise), but a Clerk assisting the committee. On the merits of your suggestion, each arbitration case probably has more than enough pages associated with it already, so I would be reluctant to add another one. However, I do sympathize with your frustration at not knowing specifically where questions for the arbitrators should be posted to achieve visibility when the workshop and talkpages have become unwieldy, as I have had the same feeling myself on occasion. Perhaps a section of this nature could be added to an existing arbitration page template—but then I fear such sections would quickly be overrun with less-critical questions and speeches-in-the-guise-of-questions, and become as difficult to navigate as the set-up we already have. Hmmm. Will have to give this one some more thought. Incidentally, central discussion of a suggestion like this would probably be best at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration or Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration policy. Newyorkbrad 11:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What he said. Also, I can't see too many questions needing to be asked of arbitrators other than those of scope (which in any case is generally treated fairly informally), since the main information flow is generally from parties' statements and evidence sections to arbitrators, rather than vice versa. David Mestel 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey gents, thanks for your replies. Yes, I wanted to get the clerks involved immediately because this type of thing would add more burden for you so I wanted to get your feedback. Essentially this proposal stems from my two experiences in arbitration. In the first (Paranormal), Fred Bauder's talkpage became the de facto talk page where we could all get an arbitrator response: In the second (Science Apologist-Martinphi), Martinphi (and others) have begun asking Kirill questions directly on his talk page, and Kirill has changed a proposed decision based on that discussion: . I, too, have questions that I would like answered, but I don't think that messaging individual arbitrators is in the best interest of the encyclopedia.

When I proposed the Q&A page, I was thinking that each Case would have its own page. Kirill suggested, instead, to create just one Q&A page, and now I think that it makes sense - each Case just has its own section on that one page, not its own page. This way, the Arbitrators just have to watch one extra page total, and it really would reduce the cherrypicking and userspace decisionmaking that has occurred in the cases I've been involved with (and therefore, likely others). I will move this discussion to the Arb talk pages if you think it would be appropriate and useful. Thanks, Antelan 17:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made the proposal more broadly, here. Thanks Antelan 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Vk

Hello Brad. Any chance you could refactor this comment from an logged out editor? My nationality and identity is not publicly known, for the exact reason that it tends to draw those sort of ridiculous comments. In this case its not even a correct assumption. I would remove it myself, but can't be bothered with the inevitable fall out. Thanks. Rockpocket 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I went to Vintagekits' page to consider removing the comment, but I see that another administrator has already responded to it. I would feel a bit awkward removing the comment given that fact, at least without her consent. On a slightly different matter, you will have seen the note I left at the bottom of Vintagekits' page. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did, thank you. But with regards to Alison's reply, she is not the one who has received threats from Vk et al, and is open about her identity. I have, and would really rather an anonymous editor didn't discuss identifying details about me with the person who issued those threats previously. I'm kind of trying to avoid Vk's page as much as possible, as he requests, but if that means others are free to speculate about personal details about me there, I will not hestitate to remove them myself. I appreciate this is not your problem, but this is what will happen when those "involved" editors leave things to those "uninvolved". Rockpocket 03:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of a subsequent comment by an IP later in the same discussion, I now feel it appropriate to remove the thread in its entirety. I have done so with a edit summary indicating that the thread should not be restored. Newyorkbrad 03:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it (though currently it remains in place, the IP having reverted it for the 4th time). Rockpocket 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 05:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RE Tally updates

That's no excuse. Before the format change, I always voted on RfAs by pressing the edit button on the Discussion header, and subsequently made a second edit to update the tally. Failure to do so is simple laziness. :-) Walton 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Request help to create Arbitration formal request

I am requesting help to fill out a formal arbitrition request in reference to 3rd US Infantry. The Request for mediation for this topic has been closed http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry. -TabooTikiGod 09:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The instructions for filing an arbitration case are at the top of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. After reviewing them, please open the new-case template, fill it out with all of the requested information, then paste it at the top and the new cases section and notify the other parties. I or another clerk will adjust any minor formatting problems, so don't worry about the fine details as long as all the required information is given. If you have any more specific questions, please let me know. (I may be offline in meetings most of the day, so if someone else sees a follow-up question here before I get back, please feel free to address it.) Newyorkbrad 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new request for arbitrtion http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Article_Title_for_3rd_US_Infantry Please see if it's in an acceptable format and there's sufficient information for the case review. -TabooTikiGod 05:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The formatting looks okay. You failed to notify the other parties as you're supposed to, but one of them saw it anyway and to save time I went ahead and notified the other two.

Is this really necessary? After a month of mediation, nothing was resolved, and not even the WP Military History Admin was arguing against the name of the article? Ryecatcher773 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators will decide whether or not to accept the case. If they decline it, they may offer other suggestions for how to resolve the dispute. Newyorkbrad 18:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat 02:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Tightrope Award for a sure-footed editor (don't look down)

You are hereby awarded the Blondin Trophy, otherwise the Tightrope Award, created by Bishonen for Misplaced Pages's Masters of Balance. The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

Email

I've responded to your email. Feel free to phone me when convenient to discuss things in more detail. --Gene_poole 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've replied. Based on the assurance and clarifications contained in your e-mail, hopefully the matter is resolved, and a telephone call from New York to Australia will not be needed. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this by any chance be in regard to Gene Poole's post, violating policy of WP:No legal threats? On 21:57, 5 November 2007, Gene Poole posted here, which reads:

"Your activities are presently under forensic review by multiple external parties, and will be dealt with via the appropriate channels in due course."

According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, a standard of British English usage in Gene's country of Australia,

COED forensic "adjective 1 relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods to the investigation of crime. 2 of or relating to courts of law."

Since Gene previously stated his skill as a writer of the same article ("clear, unambiguous prose" - diff), it must be assumed that he meant exactly what he wrote on the talk page.

Note on 02:44, 26 June 2007, Gene's loathsome disease libel intended to be read by a third party (diff), progressed four months later to a legal threat against the same libeled user. This is a pattern described at WP:Harassment, as well as being two WP:OFFICE-level problems. WP:NLT reads:

"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding."

(Please reply here if desired) Milo 22:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have corresponded with Gene Poole and at this time the matter has been addressed. Of course, all editors on these articles should do their best to remain civil and refrain from using unnecessary epithets or making personal attacks. Please feel free to let me know if any new issues or problems arise. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above interpolation, please note my public record comment here. AFAIC the matter is now at the point where an indefinite block should be applied to the offending account. --Gene_poole 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference. As you know, the concerns I initially raised concerned a different user from Milomedes. Given my monitoring of that issue (which hopefully will no longer be an issue), I will leave it to someone else to evaluate Milomedes' contributions. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you haven't blocked Gene, I take it that the legal threat has been withdrawn, or was an intimidation fake all along. Currently it remains visible. When will it be removed? Milo 00:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gene Poole has clarified to me that this was a reference to review by Misplaced Pages administrators, rather than to off-site legal action. Absent some further development, I accept this assurance, and this should resolve the matter. I agree with you, Milomedes, that the wording of the reference to "forensic evaluation" was ambiguous, and would welcome Gene Poole's removing or modifying it, but I would also prefer that you continue your own editing maintaining as much separation from Gene Poole as possible, and make no further reference to the matter. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Forensic" should indeed be removed or modified. But likewise the word "external" needs removal or modification, which in Gene's precision usage unambiguously refers to the world outside Wikimedia servers. 'Your activities are presently under review by multiple administrators, and will be dealt with via the appropriate channels in due course.' would be one minimally satisfactory delete-replace edit. The original version must not remain visible. Milo 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with popup's

I tried to get popup's set up in my monobook.js but no luck nothing showedup & i couldn't figure out where in the village pump to ask so i thought the next best thing is to ask you to help Richardson j 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Brad should be tucked up in bed now, so I've had a bash at sorting it for you - any problems then let one of us know. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. Richardson j, thanks for the compliment in thinking of me, but I would have been pretty useless at that sort of thing anyway, so I appreciate Ryan's stepping in. Regards to both of you. Newyorkbrad 15:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks .

Now i'm of to thank ryan himself Richardson j 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian-Tenebrae

Hi, Brad, and thank you for taking this on. I appreciate the Arbitration committee asking for evidence and specifics, and I'm hoping I can have over the weekend to gather things -- from what I can see from looking at the linked pages and subpages, this is a pretty substantial undertaking, and I want to give it the time it needs. Again, and I know I speak on behalf of many, thank you. --Tenebrae 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators voted to take the case; I'm just the Clerk who set up the pages and notified the parties and such. Typically, the parties have at least a week or so to present their evidence and proposals before the arbitrators start voting, so over the weekend should certainly be all right. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)