Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:57, 21 May 2009

Albanian articles

Hello,

I am sorry, I posted in the wrong section. Never mind my post before this, it was a mistake.

--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah well, I was in a bad mood. By the way, would you please check out this articles here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Illyrians http://en.wikipedia.org/Illyria

I tried to post a valid, referenced material about Illyria and Illyrians. But that user, again is making me go nuts by removing material without any actual reason. I think you understand why I got nervous before. Here, take a look at what I wrote, and please, if you see that any trimming is needed or you can find a better location...

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Illyrians&action=edit&undoafter=290146216&undo=290156658 --Jurgenalbanian (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms

Please reopen this AFD discussion as it has only been open for a little over a day and the process specifies that seven days is the period for this. WP:SNOW is not applicable in this case as there were already numerous Keep and Merge opinions and improvement of the article had only just started. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That article was clearly not going to be kept, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT clearly demonstrate that. You can take it to WP:DRV if you would like. There is no reason to waste everyone's time with such a silly AfD. Prodego 15:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your boldness in closing said AfD Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

77.96.67.86 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for this. Regards. Adambro (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

TE

I've re-deleted User_talk:Tennis_expert. He confirms that he is off, and I've told him he needs to stop making comments elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, just so long as he isn't editing. Prodego 15:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Misplaced Pages in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Zhang Yueran

Are you sure about the speedy deletion of this article? As a non-administrator I can't check, but I have some recollection of adding sources that indicate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There were some refs, but the claim to notability was "She won the 2001 New Concept Composition Competition organised by Mengya magazine." both of which were redlinks, so meh. If you want it restored to check it out in more depth, let me know. Prodego 00:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that those are red links is a reflection on our weak coverage of Chinese topics, not on the notability of the subject. She passes notability guidelines by virtue of coverage in reliable sources. Yes, I would like the article restored, and am disappointed that an admin would speedily delete a sourced article rather than take it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to assist in going through the new page backlog and are able to judge all of the pages there without making any misjudgments, I would love your assistance. Prodego 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

John Wall (basketball)

Why did you delete the article? Ice (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ATHLETE. Prodego 02:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For your information: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20#John_Wall_.28basketball.29. decltype (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OP

Greetings, I'm just trying to get a current feel for who is still active in the project and if anybody would object to cleaning out inactive users of the verified user list. Thank you for your time. Q 03:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano block

I tried to leave a message on your talk page earlier, but there was a persistent server problem. That was a terrible block. He was clearly angry about this, and rightly so (I could give many reasons). Please reconsider the three weeks. Peter Damian (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Peter here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Xeno was certainly not behaving as well as he could have, but Giano's leaving a comment which he clearly knew was a personal attack is just not acceptable at all. ("Yes, this is probably a personal attack, and I shall be banned") The only possible reason to make such a comment is to blatantly defy one of the cornerstones of the project, collaboration. Working on a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages sometimes does mean working with annoying people, but that is no excuse to be indecent to others. Due to Giano's long history of civility issues, and that Giano clearly intended to be blocked, I made the block longer than might otherwise be done. However, given those two factors, I still feel that 3 weeks is far less of a duration than the max that could be justified. Prodego 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Prodego, I think I understand what your point is here, but it seems that you're making the block essentially on principle rather than pursuing a practical or pragmatic end. That is, what are the actual effects of the block? Does anyone actually "learn a lesson" here? Is there overwhelming disruption to the project? Why 3 weeks, if not to punish, or even drive off? I can only assume that you did what many people do, use an informal calculus and hope for the best, but I think it was poorly applied this time. I think your first instinct, to talk to both parties and try to talk them down from their posturing, was the right one, and that you applied your hammer far too early, and unevenly.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already comented briefly on Xeno's talk, but you asked me to reply here; I pretty much echo what Tznkai says above. Launching a torrent of abuse out of the blue would be one thing, but replying to one rude comment with another might not be admirable, but it's understandable. Xeno's already made it clear that he wasn't particularly bothered by Giano's comment; three weeks seems an arbitrary and unfairly long figure (what will have changed in three weeks?). Answer honestly, if I, or Xeno, or anyone without Giano's baggage had said that, would you have enacted the same three-week block? (I posted "I don't know who you are but you're starting to seriously annoy me" on my talk just a couple of days ago, and none of the large group of friends and enemies who watch my talkpage raised an eyebrow.) –  iridescent  21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the preventative not punitive argument. This is an important point, so I'll try to respond as fully as possible. Disruption, whether in the form of incivility, personal attacks, revert wars, stalking, are all of the type where a block is not going to directly solve a problem. Sure you can block someone for edit warring, but what is stopping them from coming back as soon as the block expires? Civility works the same way. While a block does not directly prevent the issue from recurring (except of course for the length of the block) the hope is that it would at least deter the behavior, and show that we, as a community, are serious about having an environment that fosters cooperative collaboration. In this case, Giano was certainly not the only party at fault, and discussion was certainly the best way to resolve the issue. As I was writing a rather lengthy 'calm down guys' style message, however, Giano made a personal attack that indicated he clearly knew that it was unacceptable, and that he was going to do it anyway. The point of warnings is to inform people of the policies. If Giano is so clearly stating 'I know this is wrong and I will be blocked, but I am going to do it anyway', as I interpreted his comment, then that is clearly disruptive, and warrants a stronger response then an angry letter. Due to the long history Giano has with civility issues, and the fact that he clearly intended to be blocked, I opted for a longer block than I would have if he had not included that 'I will be banned' comment, but given that he did make that comment, I think 3 weeks is still far less than could be justified. Thanks very much for commenting here Iridescent, I appreciate it. Prodego 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Psst, I think you mean punitive not putative. the wub "?!" 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, fixed. :) Prodego 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think this will actually deter Giano at all? If someone says "I'm going to end up blocked for this" in this context, this isn't "I know what I'm doing is wrong" its "I know someone who has the power to block me will do so, and he's wrong." I'm not arguing from any particular principle here, but I'm saying, it is empirically shown that by blocking Giano for 3 weeks you lost any progress, as slight as it was, in calming the discussion down and solving the core issue. While the long block is on face justifiable by process and general standards, it is in substance a mistake because it is ineffective (in this case) at producing the civil conduct you desire.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If Giano says "Yes, this is probably a personal attack, and I shall be banned", I can't see how he would come to the conclusion "I know someone who has the power to block me will do so, and he's wrong." It is fairly obvious that his comment was not appropriate. Prodego 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the most reasonable interpretation of events and motivations is that Giano thinks he was in the right, and that someone in the wrong would punish him for saying what he thought was right. An unhelpful attitude perhaps, but it also demonstrates that blocking is the wrong tool for the problem.--Tznkai (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If Giano believes that calling another editor a "pathetic little runt" is in the right, then perhaps this project is not right for him. Prodego 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've long suspected that myself, but who are we to make that determination? My belief is that as administrators our biases should be to reduce drama, create peace, encourage productive editing, and protect problematic editors from themselves and their taunters. That is, it is our job to solve problems, so the encyclopedia can get written. I think blocking Giano, especially for 3 weeks, did not advance any of those goals in an efficient way.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that editors who appear to purposefully provoke other editors should be blocked for at least half as long as the editor that they provoked into a personal attack. Therefore, I'm asking you to block Xeno for 10 days. Yes, this will be a punitive block, but so was Giano's. Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion, however, given that Xeno's behavior was a bit more subtle than Giano's (to put it mildly) I think that it would be better to discuss the issue of what to do about Xeno on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Xeno, where many editors and admins can get involved. Since I made the block on Giano, I would also prefer another admin takes any action that is needed regarding Xeno. Please do bring it up on ANI though, it is an important matter which deserves discussion. Prodego 00:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock

Tznkai has quite deftly explained to me how my actions were inappropriate; though I was simply trying to help as a humble wikignome, it obviously had the opposite effect. Clicking through to the article and editing was unwise and, as you pointed out to me, I handled the situation poorly. Please unblock Giano, or signal that you do not mind another administrator unblocking. –xeno 02:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck!

You made a good block of a good length. I hope you get away with it - there is a serious problem around here of people being far too lax on experienced editors that continually cause trouble and should know better. I got desysopped on trumped up charges when I tried a long block in that situation, I hope you don't follow me. Best of luck to you! --Tango (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)