Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 31 December 2008

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Duncan Airlie James

Thankyou very much for your help very much appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMW67 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

conflict with article and the unwillingness of editors to accept 3rd party sources

Hi Ed, you checked already a note I left some days before on the admin board regarding the NKT article. It looks like it is as hot as that of Scientology. What strikes me is that I commented again and again about 3rd party sources and gave excerpts of them etc but two editors remove again and again 3rd party sources to favour heavily WP:SPS by the organisation. I like to ask you to check the last edits by User:Atisha's cook and User:Truthbody on the NKT article, the latter may have violated the 3-times- revert-rule. What I can not understand is that the changes - eg to quote Clarke - were in a way the result of all the other editors, like emptymountains. With the present changes by Atisha/truthbody the article follows line by line only WP:SPS at the cost to exclude all other sources. I can also report this to the Admin board but wished to look for a soft way to solve this. thanks a lot, t --Kt66 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the best is to revert it to a version, which includes at least some 3rd party sources, and then to block the complete article. --Kt66 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with the current revision although it may be accidental reverted to this by truthbody: the current revision of New Kadampa Tradition as edited by Truthbody (Talk | contribs) at 17:30, 2 December 2008. Maybe it is good to block it with this version. --Kt66 (talk)

There seems to be a very active discussion on the article's Talk page, in which you are participating. If you have doubts about the suitability of a source, you could ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you disagree with a decision about the NKT article, you could open an article WP:RFC to bring in outside opinions. Contact me if you need help following the RFC instructions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Kt66 has a conflict of interest (as can be found with his anti-NKT blogs and websites and comments all over the WWW, which he does nothing to hide). It seems he will not stop undoing the other editors' changes until he reverts the NKT article to his own POV, as it was largely before April of 2008. He will not listen to any other editor's reasons, he mainly ignores them, and repeats the same things over and over again on the talk pages. There are plenty of third-party sources in the NKT article -- it is not perfect, but it is vastly better and more wp:npov than it was when kt66 was the main editor (before others stepped in). There is a controversy section at kt66's request, and that is fine, but he seems to be aiming at making the whole article into a controversy, which is grossly misleading to the reader. There have been ad nauseam discussions with user kt66 over the past few weeks. Today he started a redundant article called prehistory of the NKT, which makes no sense given the material is already included in the NKT and Manjushri articles. He will not accept others POV at all. It is hard to know what to do to work with him. Please advise. (Truthbody (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

I have officially proposed that the Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition page be deleted, as it is mostly duplicate content from other Wiki articles and has many copyright violations, as demonstrated on the talk page under the heading "Content Forking?". Emptymountains (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I must concur with Truthbody. There are now a number of editors engaged in trying to stop this one user, Kt66, from monopolising this and related articles and rewriting them to his own, highly-opinionated pov. Reasoning with him is almost impossible. He DOES have a very good knowledge of the WP Rulebook, though, it seems!

Atisha's cook (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry, i may have accidentally reverted kt66's changes four times -- actually, I ended up accepting his version (with a suitable compromise suggested by a third editor), but I was unaware of the Wiki rule against reversions until I just looked it up, and so I overdid it. I know now and will be more careful in future. (Truthbody (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Ha! Exact same thing happened to me!  :-D Only I had to be told about this 3RR rule... But I sympathise - this Kt66 drives a body to it.

Atisha's cook (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the steps of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution if you all can't reach agreement on the Talk page. I don't see any reason why admins should intervene, at this point. Avoid WP:Edit warring. Use an WP:RFC if there is an intractable dispute. Since I'm not planning to take any action, it would be better to continue this discussion on the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ed. We'll try to work out a solution, another editor has already made a proposal. I would be happy if you can have a short look on Prehistory of the New Kadampa Tradition if that subpage fulfills "content forking" and "copyrightvios". I am just interested to have a outsider perspective. Maybe its good to let pass it through the deletion process, then more can add their pov. What do you think? Thanks --Kt66 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page discussion seems rather hostile and consists of exchanges of debating points. It would be easier to follow if someone (such as yourself) could provide a calm and neutral summary of what each side is asserting. You might do so at Talk:New Kadampa Tradition. From a very quick look, your 'Prehistory' page does look like a POV fork. Some of us are aware that most of the participants have a COI, so it is not necessary to keep mentioning that every five seconds. You COI-affected guys are the only ones interested enough to participate, but if you would be patient and work step-by-step, we could get a useful article from your efforts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Koov :(

Rolhn (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And Rohly (talk · contribs).--Avala (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Recent gravity theories

Dear Ed, I was hoping I could get your permission to include a new gravity theory under the section "recent gravity theories" on the Gravitation page, which has published in a peer reviewed physics journal. The journal is listed as an acceptable and credible source by Misplaced Pages (Acta Physica Polonica B). The peer review status verifies that the basis and results of the new gravity theory are correct. I have been stifled by editors when I tried to make a page for the theory and even the company which has developed and is working on doing nuclear experiments which validate the theory. All I wish to do is list the title of the theory without any bias or argument towards current theories. Being that the listing of alternative theories section includes many which do not pass all the experimental tests of gravity wouldn't it make sense that this one be listed since it passes all of them (as is criteria for a journal even thinking about publishing a new theory considering the flak they would receive if it did not). Please advise. Thank you! Gravityforce (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The arguments expressed by the Delete voters in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Unified Gravity Corporation persuade me that your theory does not yet have the general recognition that would allow it to be included in Gravitation. Come back if the theory gets covered in a mainstream physics journal. If the mainstream can't even be bothered to refute the theory, then it's probably not at the level where Misplaced Pages needs to include it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about use of COI template

Hello Ed, you might remember me from having worked on the article New Media Strategies when I was using my personal account, WWB, and thanks again for your help with that.

Just last week I sought to create another new article, building on what I had learned from that process: about Pete Snyder, who is the founder of the company. Knowing what I do about COI, I sourced every fact presented in it and, as before, posted it to my user subpage and asked the Help desk to review and approve it.

The problem is that shortly thereafter, the editor Orangemike tagged the article with COI and tone warnings. I tried to discuss this with him, but he soon stopped responding and I am not entirely sure what to do next. Can you give me some advice on how to resolve this issue? Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note that another editor has already looked into the situation. No need to follow up if you're busy, but you're always welcome to. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

reference repair squad or citation study group

Thanks for your message about my AN post. Unlike other topics on that board, mine is very much about working on articles (little drama), not about socks, blocks, vandalism, etc. Usually, there is not an argument about the date format with a particular FA candidate. I'm not yet skilled at fixing these so it takes a long time to do 50 references, often having to do a few more than once. If someone knew how to do it well and fast, they could come in handy. I would be willing to try it to gain expertise. One third to half of the battle for nicely written articles to become FA is to fix the references. Chergles (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

edit warrior

ed, what good would that do? i ask because i am not the most savvy wikipedia user. i am on wikipedia to help edit when i think it needs it and this is my first (and hopefully last) foray into admin issues. Brendan19 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll think about trying an article RfC if you can't get a consensus at Joe the Plumber. If the claims in your 3RR reports are correct, you are probably part of a majority on one or more of those issues. Though the majority doesn't always rule, it strengthens your bargaining position. An RFC/U takes a great deal of patience, which not everyone can spare. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

im open to an article rfc or anything that will help, but i believe the ultimate problem lies with the one users behavior. if my complaint is about that users edit warring then what good would the rfc/u do? maybe i dont understand what the end result of an rfc/u is- please explain if i am missing something here. i think a clear pattern of edit warring is visible, so why isnt my complaint best served at the edit war admin page? i would like to help the jtp article, but at this point i am more interested in stopping future edit warring by collect on all the articles in which he is involved. Brendan19 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The political articles tend to have nasty debates around them. It would be surprising if Collect's behavior is really far below the usual standard. State the question to be decided in an article RfC and see what happens. You will have to negotiate on the Talk page to get support for your version of the RfC, which itself may be helpful. You've already availed yourself of WP:AN3, you got an answer, so let it go. You are asking such basic questions that it suggests you don't have much experience of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages. If so, please don't ask the admins to do unusual things that are not really part of what we do. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

unusual things? really? ive been asking questions precisely because i dont have much experience with dispute resolution. who would you propose i ask if not admins? "Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information, or in a dispute. "-. Brendan19 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer questions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but i didnt get that impression when you requested that i stop asking for unusual things. far as i could tell i was just asking for answers. anyhow, now that thats cleared up i wanted to bring to your attention the fact that collect has now been temp blocked without any input from me. given that fact i do not plan to go through w/ the rfc/u, but thanks for the suggestion. good day. Brendan19 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IP disrupting again

He's at it again, just so you know. _D.D.J.Jameson 12:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Handled. EdJohnston (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Is it okay with you if I leave all further notifications of disruption from this IP at your talkpage? _D.D.J.Jameson 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, but now that the case is documented at WP:AN, you might be able to get AIV to handle this editor in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  My only concern there is that since it's subtle vandalism/disruption, AIV might not deal with it quickly. _D.D.J.Jameson 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

editwar at 2-step garage

Hi Ed, and thanks for some much-needed admin action at the article. I'd ask you to have a look at the following:

Password635536 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Yaneleksklus

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Yaneleksklus (3rd)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Yaneleksklus and_sockpuppetry (again))

There are some anon IPs he's also using at WP:SSP.

This user is not a vandal. He just WILL NOT stop IP- (and recently, user-) socking or attempt to reach consensus in any manner. He's a recurrent headache for maintainers of various music genre articles. --Kaini (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As an update, the user is blocked now. I would feel a lot more comfortable if there was an IP range block applied too, as there has been in the past with this guy, cos he will be back. --Kaini (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a complete list of all the IPs you think he has used. If you know them, can you add them to the sockpuppet report? I assume we need a block that is some flavor of 82.209.*, but that is a /16 which is a very large range. Need to pin it down better. I'll be back in a few hours, or maybe another admin will notice the SSP and take some action. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

sure, this time round, on the articles he's been involved with which i actively maintain, we have

82.209.211.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

82.209.209.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

82.209.209.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).

i do know that he's been causing a headache to User:RockandDiscoFanCZ as well, which also gives me

121.9.230.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a potential.

bar the last one, they're all on WP:SSP. seems to be a belarus-based IP (and the source he's using for most of his edits is a russian one with very questionable WP:RS). thanks for your attention ed! --Kaini (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

...and he's back under 82.209.208.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Kaini (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 82.209.208.0/22 for one week. I'm going to submit 121.9.230.162 as a possible open proxy over at WP:OP to see what they think. Reverse DNS on that IP leads to this result which includes a report of some domains that are on a spam blacklist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

hi ed, hello again. before raising concerns again at SSP i'd like your opinion on yet more anon edits. without direct evidence, the fact the editor is only involved in articles yanelek authored, and mostly removing clarify tags and the like, what do you reckon? , .

86.57.138.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

96.232.107.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

the second one could be an entirely innocent driveby anon edit for all i know. the first one however looks to be from the same region. as always thank you for your attention. --Kaini (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino - User:Gravoso

Hi Ed. You asked me to keep you posted if Ragusino set up any socks. Well, User:Gravoso appeared yesterday. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Handled. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black!

Debona.michel (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

House of Bunić/Bona

Hello Ed, There seems to be an edit war brewing again. Look at revision history ]. Correct sources and references are repeatedly being ignored. I address this in the talk page but correct edits just get reverted with a claim of being unsourced. I admit that I am a relatively new editor and I have taken the time to read through Misplaced Pages policy, but I do not understand why sources are being ignored in this manner. Best regardsCaboga (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits do not make sense. I've already expressed my views on the Talk page; evidently you don't find my arguments convincing. I still think this article should be nominated for deletion. Please don't edit war, because that is bad for the encyclopedia and could lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how a edit that involves correcting an incorrect name with respective sources and references cited does not make sense. I am following Misplaced Pages policy for these edits. So according to your above reply does that mean that edits that do not follow Misplaced Pages policy make more sense? Secondly look at the Talk page and you will see that I agreed with your views and article nomination. Lets go on and nominate all other pages relating to Ragusan noble families for deletion as they also only have genealogical content. Third I agree that edit warring is not good. I think the degree of edit warring on these pages is too high, too many editors edit with no sources whatsoever. So absolutely the quality of Misplaced Pages becomes questionable. Further as a new editor I joined in good faith to constructively improve the quality of articles/pages I worked on. Unfortunately I rarely encountered a welcoming tone or neutrality or good faith as is laid down by Misplaced Pages policy.Caboga (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your work on this article seems to form part of an ethnic edit war on Dalmatian topics. If you truly have good intentions, please reflect on how it looks to others when you revert the Croatian names to Italian ones. I did not notice you waiting to get a Talk page consensus before doing that. The sources now in the article are weak, but the probabilities suggest heavy use of the Croatian names over the last several hundred years. This is the type of problem that is sometimes reported at Misplaced Pages:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your comment seems to be biased. I am reverting to hereditary surnames that Croatian families are still using in Croatia as their legal surnames. This is documented in the sources I reference. The sources I reference are sources used by Croatian as well as international scholars and institutions. Please bear in mind that the names are not Italian. In Croatia there are a lot of families that also have foreign sounding names. Unfortunately there are editors who wish to provoke an edit war and edit without sources or consensus. Please reflect how it looks to others when legal surnames are repeatedly changed. Thank you for your reference to the Noticeboard, but I do not see how a legal surname is an issue for an ethnic and cultural conflict noticeboard.Caboga (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the sources has already been discussed at Talk:House of Bunić/Bona. You don't seem to have persuaded the other editors there that the sources are convincing. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston, you seem very naive and/or easily influenced. Based on what you wrote above ("Italian names") it certainly shows you know very little about Dubrovnik's history. Are you American or Croatian? Who is backing you? I hope you are not in the category of Americans who think that Africa is a COUNTRY (Hello Sarah Palin!), that Switzerland's official language is Swiss (or even Swedish), that Scandinavia is a country, etc.

If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way. Emile Zola.

Debona.michel (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fru23

I did one better--I full-protected his talk page. Not sure if simply turning off his ability to edit his own talk page would have been enough, given that he appears to still be socking it up (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts). Blueboy96 21:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

John Zachman claims copyright on a figure you added at Zachman framework

Hi Ed.

I wonder if you could take an other look at the problem you proposed to me, maybe even find a American Misplaced Pages copyright expert to look at this case. I prefer to start all over again, and that is why I start this conversation on your talk page. I hope you don't mind. It is all about the two events:

1. As we know we are talking about the Image:VA_Zachman_Framework.jpg, which I retrieved from the A Tutorial on the Zachman Architecture Framework on the va.gov website, and.
2. User:Phogg2 has send an email stating Zachman didn't release copyright on that image.

Now I have the following questions:

• The Tutorial is released by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in the public domain, because it doesn't mention any existing copyright. Did I do the right thing using an image from this source, or not?
• User:Phogg2 or even better Zachman himself should have contacted the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and that Tutorial should have been changed first, or not?. It is the wrong procedure to contact us, or not?
• There is no prove Zachman owned the copyright on that particulair image in that tutorial in the first place. The Tutorial doesn't state it's author. It only gives the logo of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs on every presentation sheet. So we could asume it is in the public domain, or not?

I removed the image rigth away from the article, the moment you contacted me. But I removed this out of a courtesy towards you and towards User:Phogg2, and indirect towards Zachman.

Now just tonight I realized there has been quit some disagrement around the Zachman Framework article, and you have been giving directions on the talk page for almost a year. I guess you agree that this article would improve with a good illustration. I think we shouldn't give up that image so easily, but check things first some more. So I would be gratefull if you could check this once more with a Misplaced Pages copyright expert.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask this question at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. I don't see too much point, because it seems more likely that the author of the VA slideshow was not paying much attention to the copyrights of his figures. (I.e. I assume he did not check that he had the rights to republish them). If he were just showing his presentation in-house it might not matter, but when it goes on the web, it is more significant. It seems that Zachman was the original creator of this image, and the question is whether he has delegated to the U.S. govt the right to republish his image. You can send an email to the author of the presentation if you want. We are aware that some government web sites contain images that are not the work of the U.S. Government, and a disclaimer to that effect does occasionally appear. See also Misplaced Pages:Public domain#U.S. government works. Generally we need to determine where the work came from, and show that the rights are clear for our use. So the fact that the VA author may not have checked carefully, doesn't let us off the hook. It is not plausible that the VA author created the image himself. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I guess your are right all the way, and I checked once more with similair images on the web. I noticed this particular image is present on several websites. I just now realize, the author of the tutorial probably only changed the text on the top right/left corner, which has confused me. All other graphics seems the same in the images on those websites... It is most likely that Zachman is the author. Ok, thanks.... I agree, this image should be removed.

One other thing is that we can assume the author of the tutorial is not Zachman. I have tried to find that author, and the mentioning of the presentation on the va.gov website, with no luck so far. And not without reason. It is, I think, an excellent tutorial, which I would like to use. I uploaded an other image File:Zachman Framework Rows.jpg retrieved from that tutorial an hour ago. I do think this is an original image by the tutorial author. But maybe we can check this with User:Phogg2 first before I start using this image...!? What do you think?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't respond, so I just introduced that other File:Zachman Framework Rows.jpg image in the John Zachman article. If it is not ok, I guess we will be hearing from User:Phogg2 or somebody else soon enough. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I have received a response by Phogg2 on my talkpage, and I don´t know how to respons. It seems important to me that this article is illustrated with an image that gives a good impression of the Zachman Framework, but has no copyright issues. It seems only logical that this image isn´t an exact copy of the original, other wise it would be a copyright violantion. This way it seems impossible to get this article illustrated. Exact copies have copyright issues and original illustrations have the esthetical and moral problems towards Zachman? Could a fair use (copy) image of the orginal be an option? Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

D'Alembert's Paradox again

Ed, User:Egbertus is back to his old schtick. He is literally repeating the same remarks and engaging in the same inclusion of material. He hasn't learned a thing. I've reverted him once, and that (and) this is about all the time I'm going to put into this. I don't know what the protocol is, so I leave it up to you to block him again or warn him first or whatever. --C S (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally someone would write up the problematic editing and post it at WT:WPM, so that mathematicians get a chance to comment. I agree that he does not seem to be interested in consensus, and I would understand if your patience has been exhausted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC). He has reverted again. I'll offer him the chance to undo his own edit. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

He has dismissed your offer. I don't think he's learned a thing. --C S (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Egbertus has not modified the article since I left him the notice on 14 December. If he edits again, I'll take another look. EdJohnston (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in spending time reverting him, and neither is anyone else (one of the math admins even said this in effect to me privately), since none of us are keen on the real life version of Egbertus harassing or making trouble for us. Currently his version stands. Unless you have anything new on this situation to say to me on this matter, this is the last you or anybody else will hear from me on this matter. The responsibility of this matter rests in your hands. --C S (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I had thought the link was out of the article. I see now that he added the link on December 14, and refused to remove it in a later posting. Since he rejected the proposed deal under which he could continue to edit if he would stop adding his work to our articles, he is blocked indef. 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_{David (contribs)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _{David (contribs)} 19:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv and Threshold (online game)

Hmm. I went looking for the COIN entry about that article earlier, when I was researching prior to editing, but couldn't find it. Thanks for posting the link to the archive - no wonder.

There's a few odd comments and things from Mendaliv, though, that will perhaps explain why there's an edit war. "While I'm confident that I have no personal agenda, the IP will never see it that way." - who ever dares to boast that he's unbiased? There's been a major war on between Mendaliv, who is a disgruntled ex-player of Threshold who wants to bury it as hard as he can, and the administration of Threshold itself. Unfortunately, the Threshold admin has been the one posting with inflammatory edit summaries and other bad practices.

I am a Threshold RPG player myself, and have been trying to bring some semblance of order to the debate. Most of the material that is under dispute is actually fine imho, but it's being argued over as a matter of form and procedure. Mendaliv has been factually wrong in a few cases ("64.253.96.96 ... resolves to the subject's web server (see "Primordiax" in Frogdice)" as stated on the COIN entry - that IP does not resolve to anything, and the mere fact that a certain name resolves to an IP means little - a large number of people, completely unrelated to me, may well send mail from the same IP address that www.rosuav.com resolves to), and has mainly been playing the procedures rather than actually discussing content (in which, admittedly, the Threshold admin hasn't been helping, by falling majorly foul of Misplaced Pages procedures). Yes, I am not a disinterested party; but someone who truly has no bias or selfinterest in this sort of matter is unlikely to know what is and isn't significant.

There are two very obvious sides in the argument. On the one hand, you have User:Mendaliv, who desperately wants to bury something he hates. On the other, the non-logged-in Threshold administration, who wants to see his game publicized. (That sounds a GROSS oversimplification, but unfortunately it's not far from the truth.) Neither side is right, and it needs a Solomon in judgement to sort things out. Since you've taken an interest in the matter, can I please beg you to read through the various edits and make one restorative edit that you feel can be justified? I tried to do that with my most recent edit, but Mendaliv seems to have the article on his revertlist, err I mean watchlist. I've tried and failed; maybe it's time for me to step back and let someone else.

Thanks for your help. The more calm third parties that get involved, the better.

Rosuav (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Page

I've logged into Misplaced Pages after a long time and find that you deleted Hombre Suburbano because it was a "Non-notable album". I understand that amlost any type of music in a language other than english is not successfull in the United States. I don't know it there have been any policy changes in Misplaced Pages, but I remember there used to be a rule against anglo-american bias. The band that recorded this album is not only remembered in Argentina, but it influenced rock music in Latinamerica too. The Band's leader, Norberto Napolitano, supported bands like La Renga, V8, Memphis, Viejas Locas. He played a lot of times with Steve Vai and brought Guns n' Roses to Buenos Aires. The google search Pappo|"norberto napolitano" (either his name or his nickname) throws half a milion results. That means that one every 60 argentinians has made a website in his honour, or that his importance goes beyond his country. Pappo died 3 years ago and he already has a monument in the Capital city. (pictures here). —Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you wish, the article Hombre Suburbano can be undeleted and considered at AfD. It is unlikely to survive there because it was nothing more than a track listing. (It did link to one reference). The musician himself is clearly notable. Note the caution expressed in WP:MUSIC: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. The article on Norberto Napolitano already contains a track listing for that album. If you have the patience to locate some reliable sources that have commented specifically on Hombre Suburbano, then there's no reason to hesitate in creating a new article. If you can do this, I suggest you begin work in your user space at User:Argentino/Hombre Suburbano and go from there. The reference you found about the park containing his statue could be added to his main article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Koov 3

Rohlb (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching. Don't see any reverts yet, and most of his changes seem to be innocuous. His user name is suggestive, though. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is one revert so far, note the removal of "Asia" from the template; typical Koov giveaway. --Russavia 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rohlb has been blocked indef by Nishkid64. EdJohnston (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Threshold again

Hi Ed, sorry to bother you about this again, but I don't want to get pushed deeper into a revert war. Cambios, the COI-affected editor I'd mentioned at COIN previously, has seen fit to revert my prior revert to Threshold (online game) and Frogdice, saying that he's "adding sources", etc. and making personal attacks in his edit summary. As I said, I don't want to get drawn into a revert war, so I haven't reverted his most recent reverts. Any suggestions or actions you can give, I'd appreciate greatly. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 20:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if you would discuss in more detail at Talk:Threshold (online game). While the work of User:Cambios is on the border of edit-warring, Rosuav seems to be working in good faith. You have already left some messages describing the problem, at WP:COIN for instance, but they were quite general and full of policy initials. Maybe you can break it down to something more specific. If a disagreement persists between good-faith editors, an WP:RFC may be considered. If Cambios continues to revert without joining in discussion, he may be subject to sanctions. But first there needs to be a discussion, and that's something you could begin. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. Thanks for helping out here! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To be quite frank, I find it ironic that Mendaliv makes reference to WP:TEND - most of what HE is doing falls under that heading, to a far greater extent than what I or Cambios has been. In the interests of avoiding editwar, I am going to refrain from editing that page for a few days. Hopefully everything will cool down. Rosuav (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is better to deal with specifics. Mendaliv has now itemized some of the problems he perceives at Talk:Threshold (online game). It is possible he is wrong about some of them, but if you don't join that discussion, we're never going to find out. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to continue discussing things at Talk:Threshold (online game), only Cambios is actively participating. And that's been to mostly engage in personal attacks. I don't think anything productive is going on, and all that's happened is he's used his willingness to edit war to force a result. I'm sorry to bother you again with this, but as you've already been involved, I'd rather not be seen as forumshopping. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WorldFacts

I've acctually reported him on the notice board (As he is now on 5 reverts over 24 hours and he received a 3RR warning last month) --Narson ~ Talk • 18:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And yet JayJG is left alone to continue his one woman crusade for truth and justice. Give me a break. Give Worldfacts the proper respect he deserves.--HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we need much more evidence that this chap is just a meat puppet? --Narson ~ Talk • 08:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is that ? Because I simply support the efforts of this editor and am not afraid to call you all out on being unfair and acting in consort against him ? You act more like meat puppets than anyone. Give me a break.--HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

USS LIberty

I have had tons of discussions on the USS Liberty incident. It is you who have not done your fair share of research. You appear to be acting like a meat puppet jumping at Narson and/or Jayjg's commands.

In order to assist you, let me reprint one discussion where an attempt to reach a consensus is made. See USS LIberty incident - Archive 4 for a plethora of discussion.

Discussions we have had a plenty, success in giving the Moorer Report it's rightful place on the web page is what is missing. At the time this attempt at consensus was written, we had already been discussing the entry for 2 months.

• * * * *

USS Liberty - Consensus - Summary of Issues

On this day, November 11, 2008, Veterans day, it seems most appropriate to analyse the 2 months or so of debate concerning the inclusion of contents from the Moorer Report into the USS Liberty incident Misplaced Pages Page. During these 2 months there has been a great deal of debate as the appropriateness of this entry. Having sat out on the side lines to allow others to discuss the subject of the Moorer Reports appropriateness I now take it upon myself to summarize the various points made and how those of you who chose to comment on this Subject are leaning, thus attempting to define a consensus.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Words in Italics were inserted by me to add clarity, or to correct spelling.

One issue below is generalized as: "Without a third party source, the Moorer Report should not be part of the USS LIberty Incident Page." This issue is derived from the following:

Has any news firm of repute picked up the Moorer report? They might have included a synopsis that we can reference and write a brief summary of the report citing that? --Narson ~ Talk • 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

also

What you want to look for, WorldFacts, is reliable secondary sources that speak about the report....--Narson ~ Talk • 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

also

We're asking for credible secondary sources to support your proposed edit to include the Moorer Inquiry at an appropriate level. Where are they? Justin talk 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

also

PR, please stop soapboxing, and provide reliable secondary sources that discuss the Moorer report. That wouldn't, by the way, include an editorial by Moorer himself. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue then, is: Without a third party source, the Moorer Report should not be part of the USS LIberty Incident Page. My response to this is simple:

a) The U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry entry makes no reference to a third party source. This record is allowed to stand on it's own. b) The Joint Chief of Staff's Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own. c) The Clark Cliffod Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own. d) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Testimony makes no reference to a third party source. This testimonry is allowed to stand on it's own. e) The House Armed Services Committee Investigation makes no reference to a third party Source. This investigation is allowed to stand on it's own. f) The NSA History Report makes no reference to a third party source. This report is allowed to stand on it's own.

Therefore, the notion that the Moorer Report must have a third party source as a prerequisite to inclusion on the USS Liberty incident page is a non sequitur. None of the reports above have a third party source, I fail to see why the Moorer report requires one.

The Joint Chief of Staff's Report does have a reference, somewhat, in that it references an article in the Daily Star, January 21, 2004. However, this article was written by Admiral Moorer himself. This reference is in the USS Liberty incident "Other Sources" list of links. It contradicts comments by both users Jayjg and Justin. These comments are:

PR, please stop soapboxing, and provide reliable secondary sources that discuss the Moorer report. That wouldn't, by the way, include an editorial by Moorer himself. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

and

This is ridiculous, your secondary source is an editorial written by Moorer himself in the Houston Chronicle. WP:RS calls for INDEPENDENT sources not something written by the author himself. Justin talk 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

The link to this article has not been removed by either of the afore mentioned Misplaced Pages users. Yet, my attempts to use articles written by Admiral Moorer draw comments such as the two above.

The contradictions coming from those who wish to exclude the Moorer Report are extraordinary indeed!

Another issue which has been raised is "The Moorer Report is not a government investigation and therefore, not reputable. It is a fringe theory."

This issue is derived from the following:

Perhaps a solution is to add two sub-sections the "American Investigations" sub-section and title them "Government Investigations" and "Non-Government Investigations" respectively, or otherwise make it abundantly clear that the Moorer Commission was an independent, private citizen group; i.e., NOT a USG sanctioned commission.Ken (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also

I changed the title of both the American and Israeli investigations sub-sections to include the word "government" to classify the type of investigations each sub-section contains.Of course, this does not prevent somebody from adding a new sub-section for a different class of investigations, but it may help prevent misunderstanding about the type of investigations and reports contained in the current two sections.Ken (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the latter comment above, I actually created a third category, Independent American Investigations, and added my entry. As usual, these were removed, even when it satisfied the request by Ken above. My attempt at WP:AGF.

Also,

The Moorer report is no more an "investigation" than Cristol's or Bamford's books are. We don't list their work as "investigations" either. If there's anything of value in the report, work it into the body of the text. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is in error on this count. In the Houston Chronicle, on January 9th, 2004, Thomas Moorer explains the purpose of the Moorer Report. In this article, Admiral Moorer says: "Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. ". So, the Moorer Report was the result of an 'exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records". It was clearly an investigation. Note also the phrase: "we presented our findings on Capital Hill." These are the Congressional Record references I have referenced which are currently considered invalid references. But as I discussed above, at least I have references. The other reports above are allowed to stand alone. The Moorer report is the only one in which a few Misplaced Pages users are 'demanding' have a third party source.

Also,

We have a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant and it should have it's own section. The findings down't even lay specific blame anywhere but call for a new Naval enquiry with Congressional oversight which is the only way the Moorer findings can be refuted (or supported)... Wayne (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This notion is echoed here:

...It is very difficult to see how the intent behind the policy of WP:FRINGE, to keep ufos and weirdo theories off wiki, can allow us to use that policy to challenge the use of the Moorer report, given the careers, background and institutional standing of those associated with it. Fairer is the request that Secondary Sources, as per policy, be privileged, and that the Moorer Report be vetted for this article only when Secondary Sources are available. This however sets up, unless I am mistaken, an internal contradiction with the history of the article. For a good deal of its footnoting refers us to Primary sources. One cannot hold the Moorer Report hostage as a primary source, and yet write the page using primary Government documents. The only distinction that remains valid is 'official' versus 'unofficial' primary documents.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, the rebuttal to the notion that "The Moorer Report is not a government investigation and therefore, not reputable. It is a fringe theory."

a) Is stated above in two forms. The first, by the Houson Chronical article from January 9th, 2004, which says in part: " "Some distinguished colleagues and I formed an independent commission to investigate the attack on the USS Liberty. After an exhaustive review of previous reports, naval and other military records, including eyewitness testimony from survivors, we recently presented our findings on Capitol Hill. ". b) The second rebuttal concerns the notion that the report is not reputable or is a fringe theory. "We have a former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps, a former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy and a former United States Ambassador. I'd say their reputations alone make their investigation significant and it should have it's own section." Moreover, the investigation was quite thorough, so no 'theories' are discussed in the report, only actual results of the investigation are part of the Findings of the Moorer Commission. c) Lastly, the irony here is that some users are requiring of the Moorer report entry that which is missing from each and every other report listed: A Secondary source to vet the Report.

The notion that the Moorer Report is not a government investigation, when it's leaders were ALL former members of the military and one ambassador, and therefore reputable members of government, is absurd. Their reputations as government officials speak for themselves. Their Reputations as government officials also speaks volumes for the notion that the report is a Fringe Theory.

Another issue in this debate is: "Quotes from the reports illustrate the POV of the investigators or report authors."

This issue is derived from the following:

I believe readers are better served by presenting a brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report with sparse use of quoted material to illustrate (i.e., not extroll or elaborate) the POV of the investigator(s) or report author(s). Ken (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

also,

You already include reports that are nothing more than partisan statements in the investigations section so the claim you don't want to give the Moorer Commission undue weight is ridiculous. Wayne (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the issue that: "Quotes from the reports illustrate the POV of the investigators or report authors."

The entry I had had 2 quotes. No more then the entries for the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry, the CIA Intelligence Memorandums and the Clark Clifford Report. My entry also quoted statements from those involved in the report, or subjects of the investigation. Why are quotes from the U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry, the CIA Intelligence Memorandums and the Clark Clifford Report allowed, but explicitely cited quotes from the Moorer Report unacceptable? Why are Quotes from the aforementioned reports acceptable, but when I quote the report, twice, I receive comments such as: "I believe readers are better served by presenting a brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report...". It is interesting that the request continues: "brief, balanced and verifiable summary of each investigation or report with sparse use of quoted material to illustrate (i.e., not extroll or elaborate) the POV of the investigator(s) or report author(s)." I did use sparse quotes. 2 of them. What grounds are there for removing my entry when my entry does exactly as one of those removing the entry suggests?

Any reasonable person considering the items above would conclude that the exclusion of commentary from the Moorer Report for the various reasons sited above is wrong based on the information provided.

Users User:WorldFacts, User:Wayne, User:Nishidani, User:15thST, User:CasualObserver'48, User:HenryWinklestein and User:PR are all in agreement, to one degree or another, that removal of the entries for the various reasons stated is uncalled for. They agree, to varying degrees, that the entries have a place on the USS Liberty incident page.

Users Jayjg , Ken, Narson, and Justin appear to wish to exlude the entry, again, for their various reasons.

By numbers, we have 7 ayes and 4 nays. The aye's have it.

If I have misrepresented anyone's view, please let me know.

I have modified my entries by adding explicit references and added this new entry to this page.WorldFacts (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• * * * *

The responses I have received are little better then sayanim inspired deletes with all editors contrary to the Moorer report deleting it's entry, a list which consists of about 4 editors, plus whatever meat puppets they are able to muster. The list of editors in FAVOR of the entry numbers around 7. Oh - and yes - I am aware of the WP Policy on what Wiki is and is not - especially about it not being a democracy. But that doesn't matter here, does it? The goal is to keep the Moorer Report entry off the incident page, and discussion is nothing more then a tactic to keep the entry off the page. At least, after this much discussion, that is how it appears.

While the Moorer Report is not listed as a valid report on the USS Liberty incident page, these editors misuse Jay Cristol and the ADL. For example: Captain Ward Boston wrote his affidavit in which he says that Admiral Kidd was ordered to find the incident a case of mistaken identity AFTER Jay Cristol's book was published. Yet, Jay Cristol's book is used to counter the Captain's arguments. Jay Cristol's book came first, then Captain Wards Affadivit. Yet, in the "Ongoing controversy and unresolved questions" section, Jay Cristal is used to defend against a report written by 2 Admirals, a General and an Ambassador. A report which was finalzied AFTER the affidavit was submitted. How pathetic!

Furthermore, these are and have always been 'useful' edits. Unfortunately, since the edits show the Israeli's to be the "murderous bastards" (Admiral Kidd's words, not mine.) that they were during this incident, all the sayanim inspired editors hover like vultures over the entry.

Reasons for deleting the entry have approached laughable standards: For example, one of those who last reverted the entry uses as his reason that it has been reverted before!! See Nudve's Talk page.

An Excerpt:

• * * *

USS Liberty

Can you point me to the consensus that says the 2003 Moorer Report doesn't deserve it's own section at this article? PRtalk 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that this edit was reverted four times since the beginning of the month (six, including my revert and another one) is reason enough to refrain from reintroduction without discussion. -- Nudve (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• * * * *

This is the same user who decided to revert the entry when it existed for only 8 minutes. 8 minutes isn't long enough to review the sources, nevermind determining if the entry is acceptable or not, so your telling me to make useful edits is somewhat of a red herring. I don't see you as anything more then just another meatpuppet assisting others in keeping a perfectly valid entry from being added to the Page. If you weren't assisting them, then why did you not check out why an undo in 8 minutes was acceptable? No evidence that you even attempted to do this is found anywhere.

No amount of discussion will satisfy the sayanims. If you were a fair editor, you would have figured that out by now.WorldFacts (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Carl Hewitt edits

Your protection of the logic programming article has had the effect of protecting the Hewitt edits themselves. This does not seem to be what you intended. Or is it? 158.232.3.65 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As soon as protection is removed from the logic programming article, an anonymous editor adds references to Hewitt's work. The page is then protected again, but Hewitt's edits remain. The overall effect is to prevent other anonymous editors from removing Hewitt's banned editing. Is this the intention of the protection? Or merely an unintended result? 85.3.123.102 (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Which Hewitt papers should be removed, in your opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The following references were added (and unintentionally protected) when the general protection was removed from the article and before the protection was restored. In further reading: Carl Hewitt. The repeated demise of logic programming and why it will be reincarnated What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications. Technical Report SS-06-08. AAAI Press. March 2006. Revised version in Middle History of Logic Programming: Resolution, Planner, Prolog and the Japanese Fifth Generation Project.

In general introductions: Carl Hewitt Development of Logic Programming: What went wrong, What was done about it, and What it might mean for the future Proceedings of What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications Mehmet Göker and Daniel Shapiro editors. AAAI Press. 2008. Revised version in A historical perspective on developing foundations for privacy-friendly client cloud computing: The paradigm shift from "inconsistency denial" to "semantic integration" .

In my opinion the references should be removed because they are polemics, rather than scholarly articles. 158.232.3.65 (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Yaneleksklus and sockpuppetry, revisited

hi ed, hello again. before raising concerns again at SSP i'd like your opinion on yet more anon edits. without direct evidence, the fact the editor is only involved in articles yanelek authored, and mostly removing clarify tags and the like, what do you reckon?

86.57.138.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

86.57.141.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

96.232.107.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

the last one could be an entirely innocent driveby anon edit for all i know. the other two however look to be from the same region. as always thank you for your attention. --Kaini (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No edits since 19 December. Let me know if the problem continues. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

hey ed, hope you had a good christmas. i have an odd feeling that this is your open proxy again. all the anon has done is speedied four articles Yaneleksklus was involved with. now, the knowledge of how to speedy would imply previous usage of wiki, and the text in his prods is very similar to yanelek's russian english in editing articles. one of the articles, UK garage is actually pretty good.

121.9.211.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

- geolocates to china. anyway, happy new year to you too :) --Kaini (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Query on Copyrighted Material

Hi Ed, You seem to be well versed in WP policies so I'm hoping you could point me in the right direction here. I have not had much success in locating pages specific to WP policy on uploading journal articles. I can only seem to find documentation pertaining to images.

I have a scanned .pdf of a peer reviewed document which is not available from the journal online. If permissible I would like to upload it for the benefit of all.

I notice in some articles, whole chapters of books have been uploaded to WP, but as I cannot yet locate the policy addressing these materials, I would rather play it safe and refrain from uploading any such items until I can resolve this question.

Can you please give me an idea on what the go is there or direct me to the appropriate pages to read up on?

PS. If I do not hear from you before Xmas, Merry Christmas!

Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually you can ask questions like this over at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. In this case it's fairly obvious that the PDF is not released under GFDL, so it's not appropriate for uploading to Misplaced Pages. In any case uploading the PDF, even if it was free, is not generally approved of. It is better to provide a link, since that way our servers are not burdened. Under fair use (per US laws) you are allowed to summarize what is said in the journal article, and to quote short excerpts. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I figured as much. Thanks for the link too. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Physician assistant

It's the same stupid edit war at Physician assistant again. The edit war resumed almost instantly after semi-protection expired. We've made some progress with User:Nomad2u001, but we're losing ground with User:News4a2, who is determined to push his(?) POV despite the clear and (IMO) logical opposition on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (who is watching your talk page for a few days in case you want to reply here)

I've been away, and I haven't been following the recent edits. There has been a thread at ANI. It seems that Nishkid64 has full-protected the article. Contact him for any further admin actions at Physician assistant. Consider opening up an article WP:RFC at Talk:Physician assistant if you have an intractable disagreement with News4a2. I don't find his comments in the ANI thread very convincing. If you believe that News4a2's contributions are Original Research you could post a question at the Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Page merge

Hi Ed,

Sorry for what might seam to be silly questions. I have noticed that there are two Regio Esercito pages; link1, link1. These two combined with Italian Army seam will ultimately result in much duplication. A merge could be justified.. Can you please tell me where I can find the procedure on recommending this officially?

Plus is there a search page for wikipedia tools? I would like to be able to search for pages on tools that I do not yet know the names and to also do things like create my own userboxes. SincerelyRomaioi (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is straightforward to merge or link the articles, but you should hold a merge discussion first. Why don't you develop some proposed alternatives for how to do the merge, present them on the article Talk page for discussion, and then post on WT:MILHIST asking for people to join the discussion? Regarding places to search for Misplaced Pages tools, you could get started at Misplaced Pages:EIW. If you have a specific need, you could ask at WP:VPT if anyone knows of something to solve it. For Userboxes, see Misplaced Pages:Userboxes. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Seams simple enough. I like the idea of a discussion so that agreement can be reached. I will put it on my to-do list. Its about 6th in line at the moment. Cheers, Romaioi (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

121.9.230.162

I can't say for certain if it's an open proxy or not. I've got some interesting results in my Nmap scan, but I can't make heads or tails of it. I'd recommend you contact Spellcast (talk · contribs) for a proxy check. He's far more competent at checking for proxies than I am. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Thanks for your feedback! I've replied here since your comment didn't relate specifically to BLP so I didn't think I should use that board to continue the discussion. The Organization FAQ does seem to limit what the company I'm thinking of starting can do, but I also think the FAQ is overly restrictive - it goes a long way beyond the COI guidelines as they stand now, and is fairly impractical. I'm sure you know how (in)effective posting things on the talk page and saying 'someone should do something' usually is. I understand why people are reluctant to specifically allow this kind of thing - its not particularly in keeping with the original vision of Misplaced Pages and the majority of COI edits are crap - but the reality is that people do and will edit on behalf of bosses, clients, friends etc regardless of what policy is. It seems to make more sense to encourage such people to be open about what they're up to rather than limit it to the sneaky and/or incompetent, which is essentially what is happening now.

In terms of the details of the business, I haven't worked them out yet - I thought I would find out what kind of thing is okay first, then go from there. I would make sure that any info which I added could be verified by other editors. You seemed to be under the impression that I would be pasting text given to me by my clients, which I'm well aware would be a really bad idea for all kinds of reasons. Instead I would probably get them to give me copies of newspaper articles and things like that and I would work from them, with references to official websites for totally non controversial stuff. I'm fully aware I would need to be really careful with pretty much every edit I made.

I hope you're wrong about people liking the ambiguity - it undermines the whole point of guidelines if people aren't given clear guidance and can't point to them to settle disputes. --Helenalex (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have nothing to add to what I said at WT:BLP, except that you've publicized your question very widely, and it is not necessary to find further places to ask it. By insisting on a change to WP:COI you asking people to do more work than simply to advise on the propriety of your business, and that may reduce the responses. If you are not close to actually doing anything, you might want to wait before giving people this task. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yaneleksklus Strikes Back!

Hello, I don't want to bother you in this wonderful time of (post-)christmas, but there had appeared a little problem with some user...

• 93 84 50 100 & 81 20 173 65; these (probably) sock-puppets of Yaneleksklus had appear on Template of disco infobox and there he starts to vandalising. Can you please check it if these IPs are really sock puppets of Yaneleksklus? Thank you very much. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the 93.84 editor one month. The other IP has just one one edit and may not be currently active. If the abuse continues, maybe you can provide a list of his typical targets and we can start semi-protecting them. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Might want to have a look here - the IP was blocked as an open proxy. --Kaini (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been following that. The China Telecom IP 121.9.211.166 was found via Google search on a website listing open proxies but I didn't verify its proxiness myself. The IP was later blocked by a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• • is IP 93.141.24.216 related in any way, or perhaps its some other sock being disruptive? dif to disruptive edit. Romaioi (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• The 93.141 IP is from Croatia, not Belarus, so is not likely to be Yaneleksklus. Nobody has left any vandal warnings yet for this editor. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Headspinning confusion

There's also this page User talk:Savabubbles. I think the user's talk page was redirected to there for a while. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's confusing. Let's try to get Savabubble to respond before deleting his new User talk and moving back the old one. There is no reason for him to eliminate the edit history of his Talk page. His recent behavior in article space looks like move warring, and he could be sanctioned for that if he won't stop. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dylan0513's unblock request

Thanks a lot for informing me. I have left a comment here. Your opinion would be appreciated. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 04:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)