Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:58, 28 July 2008

"Surely no-one disagrees that flinging essay links around as if they represented policy is a good idea; wanton essaylinkmongering is rarely productive."

A useful comment for administrators like Gwen Gale who are so found of hammering newbies with "don't template the newcomers." --Blechnic (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tierra Redonda Mountain

My fault - I did a copy-vio check, not a content check, so forgot to remove it during my complex sequence of button pushes! Fritzpoll (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It just gets weirder

A vanity page proudly displaying barnstars from a single purpose sock puppet account. Now that takes the cookie. --Blechnic (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message

If you don't want people to think you quit, take that "retired" banner down. That's for people who've actually called it quits and aren't editing anymore. It's a little hard to square with your level of activity. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I really don't want to get into it with you. Your response to my response on WT:DYK when I explained how I reviewed that article was all you needed to say. I had expressed some hope when you first stalked off that you might actually lend some help instead of shouting from the sidelines. To my pleasant surprise, you have actually been doing that — keep it up. Let's keep our discussions focused on spotting plagiarism and not each other's motivations. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And on further reflection, I realize that was unnecessary and I apologize. I will be striking it through on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Carol Spears

Both the admins (including me) who previously opposed the community ban have commented that they are no longer opposing, per the discussion you recently started at ANI. If you wish to repropose, with links to the previous discussion, I will support and hopefully quickly have the editor banned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Madame Zingara

It is now a completely non-factual article. We are not a restaurant. We are a travelling dinner theatre. We are not fixed in one location. We travel around the world. The information we put up regarding our various shows done in our past were all referenced with citations. It has none of our history in it. Madamezingara (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... My friend, did you really just give a last warning to an indef blocked and banned account?

I'm about to protect the page for abuse by the account holder, but I think you should refactor your warning first - it looks a little hollow, truth be told. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay... I shall now protect the page, with your warning that she will be blocked left on the page.

Have you ever seen Life of Brian, where the Centurion threatens the condemned man who is insulting him? "What you going to do, Bignose? Not crucify me?" LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:Cyanophage

By continuing to remove an extremely useful overview of cyanophage publications, how exactly does this improve a page? Yes it is not ideal, but if people are to continue to improve this page then they need to understand what cyanophage are and what they do. This is provided in the titles of these publications, yes is need refining and distilling to provide an overview. But the basic information is already there. Removing this information is not exactly useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.58.183 (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wilhemina Will

OK, I was a little unsure about that one given the cut-and-pasting you've caught her at in the past, because this one used offline refs that couldn't be checked and thus I couldn't tell to what extent it was rewritten. Certainly the edits you posted are cause for concern. I will remove the nomination.

As for not accepting her noms for a while (I hesitate to use the word "ban" anywhere on Misplaced Pages outside of the formal processes that end in it), I think this ought to be discussed on the main DYK talk page to get some sort of consensus. I mean, there are practical issues with doing that ... how can you be sure someone else won't submit new ones for her? Or that someone won't discover ones submitted by her from the NewArtBot pile and nominate them themselves? And maybe this should be taken up at WP:AFC, too. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message at the Suggestions page stating that I don't think this particular article can be promoted until the users involved have come to a consensus about its accuracy. I will inform Wilhelmina Will likewise. Regards. Gatoclass (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please remove "The Mesodermochelys article has had to have almost every sentence reworded due to Wilhelmina Will's inability to read scientific articles accurately." from your post on Wilhemina Will on AN/I. This is a personal attack, and it undermines your case. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't undermine his "case" at all. WW has been disruptive, has leveled PAs at Blech, and is generally using the encylopedia to further her own agenda. What Blechnic said in your quote is objectively true. S. Dean Jameson 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lodging personal attacks while claiming to be personally attacked is a clear violation of civil. Why you would deny such a thing, I don't really know. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I deny it because Blechnic's comments you cited weren't personal attacks. He made a statement of simple fact. WW does seem to not understand how to "read scientific articles accurately." There's no personal attack there, it's as simple as that. S. Dean Jameson 18:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If you persist to mislead people and try to claim that what he said is "fact", then you are joining in on a personal attack and in violation of civil. I will have no choice but to take you up to Wikiquette for your constant personal attacks against another user of Misplaced Pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I might add that my own experience with Wilhemina Will confirms that this user does have a problem with assimilating knowledge from academic papers and reproducing those facts in Misplaced Pages. Examining Corsochelys and to a lesser extent Mystriosuchus confirms this. As to does examing her version of the disputed page Mesodermochelys to the one after I amended the references (before the actual references where examined in more detail by Blechnic). Now, academic papers can be difficult to read if one is not accustom to reading them, but she makes very basic errors, such as assigning a taxon to the wrong family when the correct one is clearly stated. I don't doubt her enthusiasm for article creation, but perhaps this is not an area of the encyclopedia her efforts are best utilised. Mark t young (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is clear - you have no right to discuss the abilities of another person. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>' Read the policy on personal attacks again, please. Point out, in detail, where making a statement of fact regarding WW's ability to read and understand scientific articles violates it. You're doing yourself no favors by jumping in the middle of this Rima. S. Dean Jameson 18:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your insisting that a person's character trait is a fact makes it a personal attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It helps demonstrate that he was not making a personal attack against her. However, as she is becoming more distruptive, what I added has a right to be there (and at AN/I). Anyway, what I said are observations based upon her edits which are undeniable. Mark t young (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also important to keep pointing this out as WW's inability to use technical sources accurately has created a large body of articles that need to be removed from Misplaced Pages or extensively edited. She simply does not read the articles correctly, then inserts wrong information into Misplaced Pages based on this misreading. It's very clear in her edits. When a user is inappropriately editing Misplaced Pages, admits they are doing it solely for the purpose of getting an "award," and then continues to do it, the community has an obligation to deal with the matter by discussing the editor's improper edits. Aslo, Rima, see my edit history. WW admitted on my talk page that she didn't understand an edit she made. She's also admitted she's reverted my edits simply because she wanted a greater number of words in the article and didn't care about the content.

Calling me revolting as WW did, on the other hand, is a personal attack. And it's also an abuse of an edit summary. Another thing about WW that is being discussed. Rima, you have no business here on my talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is clear, no personal attacking in response to personal attack. Characterizing another editor as you did is incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a statement of fact. If you were to say to me "Fritzpoll, you don't understand how papers on taxonomy are structured", that's not a personal attack. It may be a statement of opinion (a correct one in this example) but it isn't an attack. If you call me a "revolting editor", hide it in leet-speak, and then claim when questioned about it that it was actually an innocuous note to remind you to edit a different page later on, then that is a personal attack. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

NPA is clear. You are NOT allowed to bring up personal attributes of individuals, even if they are "fact", especially when you are implying something that you have no ability to know. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you're making things up. WP:NPA says no such thing. You need to stop now. S. Dean Jameson 20:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• At what point does OR's insistence on accusing Blech of "personal attacks" in the face of all evidence cross over into incivility in its own right? I'm tiring quickly of dealing with it. S. Dean Jameson 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

moving

You seem to have messed up some of my edits in process by the move of PRUPRIM. The move was correct, & I should have first done it myself, but please check the times on the edit histories. I've redone the edits, of course. No lasting harm DGG (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

POV indian IP

Hi good news 72.138.120.177 has been blocked for 31 hours. You, myself, Total film and Shshshsh have had to continuously revert him. If he returns to it again then he will be blocked indefinately soon enough ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)