Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 22 December 2008

Archives

• Archive 1 • Archive 2

Race of Ancient Egyptians Template Removal

I added that template to generate discussion and you removed it without discussing it on the talk page. Though I don't care about that article anymore, in the future please add to discussion before making such changes. Thanks and peace-out.--Woland37 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• It seemed that there was no consensus to include the template. Frankly, the template itself is pretty worthless because it doesn't give any clear idea of what needs to be done to fix the article. The template says, "An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted. This is primarily a statement about the article's subject, not necessarily its quality or veracity." Do you really think that the subject of Race of ancient Egyptians is inherently "unencyclopedic"? As I noted in my edit summary, it has been discussed in numerous reliable sources, both popular and scholarly. *** Crotalus *** 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The template was simply to generate discussion as there were several users who expressed the same concerns that I did. Conflict and discussion is good I think. Anyway, no big whoop. I still don't think that its notable enough but other people do so thats good enough for me. Peace-out!--Woland37 (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. In the future, you might want to check out {{notability}} for concerns related to notability. Of course, if you don't think the article should exist, you can always merge or redirect it, but you should try to obtain a consensus for that first. *** Crotalus *** 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UseModWiki article

Hi! Your recent move of UseModWiki to projectspace looked like some sort of misunderstanding. I moved it back, opened a section for discussion on the article's Talk page, and am just dropping you a note to come join in. I know you're an experienced editor, I'm sure you had either a misunderstanding, a slip-up, or a valid reason (in which case I'm the one who misunderstands). Thanks for your help! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chicago Outfit/Reliable sources

A tag has been placed on Chicago Outfit/Reliable sources requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Freda_Utley#POV_Check

Please see 10 new mainstream references to decide if "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." needs to be removed, if that's the way it works :-) Carol Moore 02:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Also per talk, I did just realize that the original editors had a lot of laudatory and effusive and otherwise POV language in there that I will make WP:NPOV.Carol Moore 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

RFAR

You say you are considering nominating the page for MfD. If you really want to lessen disruption on Misplaced Pages, I seriously suggest you do not. The best possible realistic consequence is that someone would remove the tag and ignore you. Otherwise, you will find the crazy discussion has found another five pages to expand to. Sam Korn 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you're probably right. Sigh. I know you're no longer with Arbcom, but I really think you should urge them to reconsider Paul August's motion to close out this case. From my perspective, there's no upside to keeping it open, and a lot of downside. *** Crotalus *** 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand why you say this. I'm not convinced, personally, that giving up is the solution. I don't quite know what is, but thankfully that isn't my job any more. Sam Korn 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks (2nd nomination)

In regard to this AfD nomination, the article on Alt.usenet.kooks is actually now on its 3rd nomination. The 2nd nomination can be seen here. However, that has now been overwritten with the current "2nd nomination" which is actually the third nomination. Could you take care of arranging the move of the current nomination and its edit history to a "3rd nomination" page? Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

curious diff

• Hi Crot, I just would like to call to your attention what I have just posted in Eleland's talk here about a curious "Abuse truth" diff. —Cesar Tort 06:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right: I didn’t pay due attention to AT’s heading before the quotation!

Changing subjects, we don’t need consensus to create Ritualized child abuse. I have been recently involved in a lengthy discussion in talk:Psychohistorical views on infanticide and some people more knowledgeable of WP policies than me believe that the subject lacks notability to merit an article of its own.

I could just move Psychohistorical views on infanticide to Ritualized child abuse: a subject that nobody would dispute that it’s not notable enough. Of course, Lloyd deMause’s theories could be maintained in a section within the article far from the lead called, for example, “Psychological explanations” of ritualized child abuse (just as the infanticide article has such section).

However if I move the page I would need a good lead and also some content totally unrelated to deMause’s theories to justify the moving (I could fix by myself the many articles’ redirects though).

Once Ritualized child abuse is created as a legitimate WP article, there would be no reason to impede us the moving of the legitimate cases of child ritual abuse to the moved article. We can even do it before the SRA page is unlocked. This strategy would comply with WP’s due weight policy by vindicating the majority view in history and sociology that the subjects are distinct (RCA is about actual forensic evidence, while SRA is about a 1980s and 90’s moral panic more analogous with witch-hunts than with ritual crime).

I've left this message in Eleland's talk page.

—Cesar Tort 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• P.S.

I'm having second thoughts. Instead of messing up with the controversial Psychohistorical views on infanticide, I am willing to start from scratch Ritualized child abuse tonight. Nothing in WP policies impedes me from doing it, right?

—Cesar Tort 23:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• P.P.S.

Done! —Cesar Tort 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Genovese crime family

You're absolutely right, however, as there are articles on almost every person who are recognized as "capos" or "captains" on the article of the Genovese crime family, and therefore it should be that simple only by clicking on that person's name if you want reliable sources of information. I agree with you that unless the article on that person is veryfied by its reliable sources, Geocities is not a reliable piece of information. Do you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlir91 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Israeli 10 Agorot.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Israeli 10 Agorot.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:GA-tag

A tag has been placed on Template:GA-tag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vandalism-warning

A tag has been placed on Template:Vandalism-warning requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Settlements/Neighborhoods

G'day, just wondering if you might be able to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Centralized_discussion/Jewish_Neighborhoods_versus_Settlements_of_Jerusalem, I thought it might interest you. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberty Head nickels

Hi. What is the status of this article's renovations for GA? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed your comments on the talk page a day or two ago. I'll try to get some work done on that today with addressing your points.

A few responses to the issues you raised:

• How would you suggest I emphasize that nickel=5 cents US face value without it sounding clumsy and out-of-place? I'm trying to think of something but am having difficulty deciding how to fit it in.
• Expanding the lead has been previously suggested, but I don't want to simply repeat what is further down in the article.
• "Finest" is indeed a technical term in this context; it means that the coin was rated higher on the "Sheldon scale" (a standard method of coin grading) than any of the other examples. See Coin grading for some details, though that article needs work.
• I'll try to address the other concerns you raised as soon as I get the chance.

*** Crotalus *** 15:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am a bit stuck but I just added one in randomly. Feel free to adjust if you wish. As to your second point, the point of the lead is actually to provide a summary and wrap-up of the article. I'll tweak the finest thing for so the uniniated like me can find reading material to clarify things for them. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mega Millions lottery fraud incident

Just letting you know I added the prod template to have Mega Millions lottery fraud incident deleted, since you've made a number of contributions to the article recently. I have already moved the information on it to Mega Millions, where I feel it belongs. Sχeptomaniac 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Elecia Battle

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Elecia Battle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of WLS-TV minivan crash incident

I have nominated WLS-TV minivan crash incident, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WLS-TV minivan crash incident. 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. Haemo (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow

I missed the whole Archtransit / CltFn / god knows who else affair entirely until just now. I'm making some small effort to go through CltFn's contributions, as they consist almost entirely of clever POV forks by the pretense of summarizing a given author's work, including massive BLP violations (Esposito is a Saudi agent, CAIR and the ACLU are jihadist fronts, etc). Help me out if you get the chance. <eleland/talkedits> 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Responded on talk. Turns out CltFn is probably not a sock according to a CU, but definitely disruptive and still banned. Definitely agree with removing the tendentious material. *** Crotalus *** 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Needscriticism

Template:Needscriticism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. szyslak 11:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes in the WMF privacy policy

Hello,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site: . The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Misplaced Pages users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposal at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggestions_for_changes_in_the_WMF_privacy_policy. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website, . Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

revising OTHERSTUFF

Good suggestion, that it can indicate a trend towards changing consensus, let me know when you write it. DGG (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Post Chronicle

I agree that the Post Chronicle links need to be replaced in most cases with something reliable, and the block of Smokefan2007 was sad, but likely warranted. However, it's probably needlessly confrontational to make repeated references to the site as a "spam aggregator" and could provoke more drama. Just my two cents, take it for what it's worth. Nesodak (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Replied on talk. *** Crotalus *** 19:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation

Heya Crotalus horridus.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk)

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ 00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Right to Exist

I have just started a page on Yaakov Lozowick's Right to Exist and thought you would be interested.Elan26 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

TfD nomination of Template:Legalthreatblock

Template:Legalthreatblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz 06:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Superfund-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Misplaced Pages:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dark Ages

In preparation for fixing part of Views of Lyndon LaRouche I had requested several books from the library week or two ago that I just picked up before the weekend. One has a chapter on LaRouche's views, titled 'The "New Dark Ages" Conpiracy'. I saw your contribution list and am reporting the coincidence. ;) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe the plumber

Sorry -- looks like our reversions were overlapping -- I'll stay away :) --Bookgrrl /lookee here 02:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I was just trying to get rid of some of the childish vandalism that was happening. *** Crotalus *** 02:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Asteroids UFO.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Asteroids UFO.svg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV on Benjamin Emanuel

I wanted to make two comments.

One - You violated AGF and borderline on WP:NPA on the DRV listing. Please don't do that. That was not necessary.

Two - Have you actually read the references listed for the article? You said "It was referenced so it couldn't be a BLP violation". I actually went and tracked them down and read them. The references partly don't exist (anymore?), and what's there does not support several of the claims made in the article. An article misrepresenting what sources say, in a biographical article about a living person, in a manner hostile to the subject of the article, is a classic textbook case of BLP violation.

You know better than this... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am second, Crotalus, it is not necessary to turn Misplaced Pages discussion into personal attacks like this. Please do not do it again. Happy editing Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would refer to WP:SPADE. I see no reason why passive-aggressive POV pushing should continue to be tolerated on Misplaced Pages. We've had far too much of that already. Certainly this is an issue where reasonable people can disagree - but Jayjg should not have closed the deletion discussion. Period. If someone with credibility had done so, I probably wouldn't have second-guessed them. *** Crotalus *** 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I like WP:SPADE too. Still phrases like "passive-aggressive POV pushing" should not be used by devoted wikipedians. We have WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA after all. Also one man's aggressive POV pushing is often another man's "upholding of neutrality and wikipedia policies". The best way to discuss your disgreements with a user is through WP:RFC process Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment If someone with credibility had done so above violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.

Crotalus, if you believe Jayjg has a conflict of interest on these issues you can say that without insulting him. If you continue to insult him, you're in violation of the user behavior policy, and that will get you blocked if you keep it up. You know what the policy says, and why it's important. Please don't chose the path of just being abusive. It does not help the encyclopedia or you in any way. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've said my piece on this issue, and do not intend to pursue it any further. *** Crotalus *** 15:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Batch nomination of articles for deletion using automated tools such as Twinkle, particularly when those deletions give the strong impression of advancing a POV and of disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point is, as you might imagine, contrary to our policy. That many of these nominations have been discussed and kept previously only increases the unfortunateness of this decision.

I have blocked you for 24 hours for this particularly egregious bit of disruption. Please consider your actions more carefully upon your return. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)