Revision as of 02:50, 11 June 2009 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →New article: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:15, 11 June 2009 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →New article: thoughtNext edit → | ||
Line 245: | Line 245: | ||
Hello. You may wish to take a look at some of the material, and sources referenced, at the new article '']''. Cheers, ''']''' (]) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | Hello. You may wish to take a look at some of the material, and sources referenced, at the new article '']''. Cheers, ''']''' (]) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
: JoshuaZ, Cirt is a damn good article creator. Perhaps you'd invite them to work on the BLP you have in userspace. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:15, 11 June 2009
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Kip Kinkel
Hello Joshua Z, this is Marksdaman. The reason I redirected Kip Kinkel to Thurston High School shooting was because the article on the shooting gives information on the shooting and the background of Kip Kinkel, I just didn't think you'd need two pages about the shooting. Thats why I think we should leave the Kip Kinkel article redirect to the Thurston High School shooting. Thank you, and please respond Marksdaman My talk 19:36, 17 March 2009
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 6 April 2009
- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Misplaced Pages research and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Contemplative Prayer
JoshuaZ-
My error - I thought you added the svcchapel source - I meant to remove it, as there are two issues with it:
1) It is a self-published source (which does not comply with WP:V) 2) It was a dead (404) link.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 13 April 2009
- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 20 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of The Misplaced Pages Revolution
- Misplaced Pages by numbers: Misplaced Pages's coverage and conflicts quantified
- News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
- Dispatches: Valued pictures
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry
An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 27 April 2009
- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Misplaced Pages
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
AFD Re-opened
As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
You're invited...
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Misplaced Pages at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Leslie
I don't believe Misplaced Pages takes the BLP issue seriously at all. It creates a policy, then refuses to enforce it with biographies of anyone who has ever attracted the fleeting attention of the press. A policy that is never enforced is not a policy that is respected. While this article is probably not the breaking point, the time will come when this refusal to consider the human dignity of the people we write about will bite Misplaced Pages on the arse and deservedly so. It is the one great blemish on an otherwise worthy project.
As your statement "someone covered in international news and continuing to get coverage isn't going to be harmed by a Misplaced Pages article" is just plain wrong. Newspaper coverage is ephemeral and fleeting, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be for posterity. Our actions here continue to harm the subject over and above the media coverage. The idea that the media have given her a good kicking, so our further little kick won't hurt is, to me, morally indefensible.
We have now enshrined one young girl's misfortune and her attempts to avoid an awful fate in a permanent, "encyclopedic" record and in the effort to keep this article we have likened the subject to a serial killer and to drug smugglers. A triumph for Misplaced Pages indeed! -- Mattinbgn\ 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: Protection
Hello, JoshuaZ. You have new messages at Icestorm815's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AfD
Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chuck Missler (4th nomination). Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 11 May 2009
- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:58, 11 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 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 May 2009
- License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
- News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages: threat or menace?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Sports statistics
Dear JoshuaZ, I appreciate that you may not deem the sports articles especially important (I'm not sure they're especially important); however, I've noticed that they're more prone to vandalism (people changing the stats to false ones in support of their team) than most. Since you're an admin, I have a request: can we restrict editing to such pages to signed-in users? It's incredibly tedious correcting such information, really.
Thanks,
--Leon (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 June 2009
- From the editor: Browsing the archives
- Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
- Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
- News and notes: Picture of the Year, Misplaced Pages's first logo, Board elections, and more
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Tamil Misplaced Pages, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
A.E. Wilder-Smith
listen i dont need the quotes okay but the rest will stay or be put back on continually —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlover32795 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
RfA thanks
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) |
Mifter (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, JoshuaZ. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Article userfied per request
See User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. Given the sensitive nature of this, you and any interested editors have 1 week to alleviate the community concenrns over WP:BLP problems. I will run an MFD in about a week to judge the community's pulse over whether or not the problems have been fixed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check my message at User talk:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. I suggest you get some outside opinions before moving this to article space to ensure that it is in compliance with WP:BLP. Not that I have doubts about you, but this is an important issue, and the topic is prone to drama. Better safe than sorry. Jehochman 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
JZ, what's your connection to Boothroyd? It looks like the "anon" that originally created the article started it in your userspace. And now it's back in your userspace after admins rushed to delete the article when the controversy hit. What's going on? It seems like a sordid web of some sort. I don't see why we can't go back to having an article with a couple sentences in it about the latest incident. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't in my userspace originally. I'm not sure why it looks that way. Moves can sometimes do odd things to title behavior. And since some difs have been selectively deleted that can help make things look even stranger. If you do think there should be an article, the most helpful thing you can do is to help expand the draft in my userspace and help track down reliably sourced content that is not about the current controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. So this is the first time you've had it in your userspace? As far as working on the article, I think it should be restored and two sentences added about the latest issues. If someone wants to expand it or improve the sourcing, good on them. I'm not that interested except in so far as I think the attempt at censorship and a cover up is obscene, especially given the circumstances that caused this latest incident. That those attempting the whitewash are many of our high power editors including Arbcoms and Admins is particularly troubling. I will be interested in their explanations if and when their actions compound the bad news and become a focus of media attention. It's enough already with the subterfuge. We don't need to add to the indignity of this black eye caused by the abuse of our policies by a trusted member of our community. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a coverup here although I can understand why it looks like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- So it's just a coincidence that when the subject of one the many Misplaced Pages articles on marginally notable editors receives very substantial news coverage because of a controversy they suddenly become non-notable and must be speedy deleted right away? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. It does mean that there are more eyes on it so when the person requests deletion they are more likely to be listened to. This is not the only example of this. There was an example a while back, I can't remember which article, where the article was written before some event occurred and the person was of questionable notability then. They then hit the news for doing something stupid and the article became mainly about that and then was AfDed under BLP1E grounds. That's partially what may be happening here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well maybe a memo needs to go out that if we're hosting an article on any editor of marginal notability, when they receive substantial coverage for some impropriety or controversy, that will not be a time to process courtesy deletions. And the whole claim that he tried to delete it in 2005 is a bit bogus anyway. He nommed his own article (created by an anon in London...) saying he wasn't sure he was notable enough, and I didn't see any kind of objection when his buddies stepped up to tell him how modest and notable he is after all. Only now when the shit hits the fan does he want it deleted? The whole thing stinks and I'm sorry to see even a few editors I think are generally okay side with that kind of censorship that compounds the problems of COI and abuse that created the mess in the first place. If Jehochman or anyone else is adamant about deleting this kind of article there's a whole list of Misplaced Pages editors with articles so they should start there instead of the ones that are actually in the news. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- No. It does mean that there are more eyes on it so when the person requests deletion they are more likely to be listened to. This is not the only example of this. There was an example a while back, I can't remember which article, where the article was written before some event occurred and the person was of questionable notability then. They then hit the news for doing something stupid and the article became mainly about that and then was AfDed under BLP1E grounds. That's partially what may be happening here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- So it's just a coincidence that when the subject of one the many Misplaced Pages articles on marginally notable editors receives very substantial news coverage because of a controversy they suddenly become non-notable and must be speedy deleted right away? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a coverup here although I can understand why it looks like that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. So this is the first time you've had it in your userspace? As far as working on the article, I think it should be restored and two sentences added about the latest issues. If someone wants to expand it or improve the sourcing, good on them. I'm not that interested except in so far as I think the attempt at censorship and a cover up is obscene, especially given the circumstances that caused this latest incident. That those attempting the whitewash are many of our high power editors including Arbcoms and Admins is particularly troubling. I will be interested in their explanations if and when their actions compound the bad news and become a focus of media attention. It's enough already with the subterfuge. We don't need to add to the indignity of this black eye caused by the abuse of our policies by a trusted member of our community. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Boothroyd
Thanks for the invitation, but I do not intend to touch the Boothroyd article itself (in any location) with a ten foot pole until someone does something about the threats Jehochman has made toward me. TAway (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Some shameless thankspam!
New article
Hello. You may wish to take a look at some of the material, and sources referenced, at the new article Politico's Guide to the History of British Political Parties. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- JoshuaZ, Cirt is a damn good article creator. Perhaps you'd invite them to work on the BLP you have in userspace. Jehochman 03:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)