Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 11 November 2009

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Hi Elonka. I've asked that the Aubane reliability issue be revisited. Just letting eds who were involved in the initial discussion know its reopened. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Juice Plus and User:Rhode_Island_Red

Would you please cast an eye over the Juice Plus article when you have time? Over the past months several editors without a history of editing there (including a couple who were rather unrestrained in their criticism of RIR) have commented on the negative tone of the Juice Plus article. Recent attemps to amend the paragraph on folate and homocysteine response have been met by stone-walling and editor denigration (accusations of SPA, meat/sock puppetry and COI have been made) from RIR. I think it may be time for another review of this article - I don't wish that on anyone but the situation is untenable as it stands. Please take a look. I'm posting this on Shell's page too). Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol

Would it be possible to semi-protect this article? The too long plot section is primarily being restored by IP editors. Yworo (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Move wars

Thanks for your interventions at Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) and Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer). I've restored the articles to their original titles. The onus is on those wishing to move them to go through the RM process. Mooretwin (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

While I'd expect an Admin to know this, Per Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

Now how does the player describe themselves? Do they describe themselves as Irish or British? We are not intrested here on how others describe them, but how they self identify. Northern Ireland as opposed to Northern Irish is at least WP:NPOV in the absence of any referenced sources when BLP is concerned. On the subject of Northern Ireland a high degree of sensitivity is required. Northern Irish is not and never has been a nationality. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The players are from Northern Ireland. One played for Northern Ireland. Northern Irish is a footballing nationality. It has its own team. Mooretwin (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, just call'em British. Thank goodness, Thompson doesn't self-indentify as a martian. Otherwise, Trevor Thompson (Martian footballer) would look rather funny. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Irish is a footballing nationality." Maybe the Admin can explain, but football is not a nationality. Now I've outlined our policy above on BLP please edit accordingly and there will not be a problem, however as of now I suggest you provide the sources that would be needed. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On another note, Elonka could you possibly address your concerns to these edits and edit summeries? They contain personal attacks, in addition to incivility and also assumptions of bad faith. . If you were to leave them a post you'll nedd to post it more than once. If there was a serious push to address such things I would most definitly insure to the best of my ability that I would not over step the mark on any of them. However, if these policies are used in a slective fasion it is very hard to take them serious. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Elonka, the BLP articles should be using British for those born post-1707 & post-1922 (in the case of Northern Ireland). GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whee, okay, let me try and answer a few of these:

1. I am probably not going to be able to personally monitor every Ireland-related article on Misplaced Pages.
2. WP:BLP is indeed an important policy, but it doesn't immediately apply to every single detail on a biography, it is mainly concerned with negative information. For other disputes, normal dispute resolution procedures may be more appropriate
3. If there's a clear case to move an article to another title, file a request at WP:RM. If other uninvolved editors agree, the article will be moved. If the consensus is truly obvious, then there may be a case for moving other articles that fall under the same rule. It may even be worth adding something to one of the naming guidelines. Is there any consensus precedent for this "Northern Ireland / Northern Irish" debate?

--Elonka 00:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Jogging my memory) I believe there was a discussion (which I was involved in) at WP:BLP, concerning the usage of 'Northern Irish'. I believe we chose from Northern Ireland as a neutral usage. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no preference what the title is, but I do have to ask, is it even necessary to specify nationality in the disambiguation tag? Why not just "Footballer"? --Elonka 00:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We've got a Trevor Thompson (footballer) article. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Could it be disambiguated some other way? By birth year, or which team they're on? --Elonka 00:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep 'birth year' is how we handle at the Ice hockey articles. But, neither Thompson article shows a 'brith year'. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I got (through external links), howabout moving Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer) to Trevor Thompson (b. 1936)? GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The simple rule of thumb is how the persons self identify. In the absence of a source, we use Northern Ireland. I agree Elonka "Why not just "Footballer." Northern Ireland Footballer is, in the absence of a source per WP:NPOV and inline with WP:BLP. Members of my famiely are from the north of Ireland, and to call them northern Irish would to them be very offensive. --Domer48_'fenian' 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's already such an article, the English fellow Trevor Thompson (footballer). -- GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For me to get into the middle and invoke BLP, I would need to see some reasonable indicator that this was genuinely an urgent matter. For example, can anyone provide a link to a source, that says that "Northern Irish" is a pejorative term, and that the politically correct version is "Northern Ireland"? If not, then I still recommend going through WP:RM. Get some uninvolved opinions into the mix, and then once there's a clear consensus, there will be a solid precedent to use for other similar cases. --Elonka 01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another fucking edit/move war created by Mooretwin, how much time do we all have to waste on this every week!? He knows using "Northern Irish" is frowned upon and causes BLP and NPOV issue but he just does it to stir shit up and has admins like Elonka to support this bullshit. Just because you are from Northern Ireland doesnt make you Northern Irish, anyone with even the smallest bit of knowledge of the situation would know that - like GoodDay said use the year of birth as is done with others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

VK blocked for 48 hours. --Elonka 01:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance of he's being unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The irony of Who is the personal attack on ya fuckin lapdog? is presumably lost on Vk, but tread carefully here Elonka. I applaud your attempts at establishing zero tolerance of personal attacks, however the level of discourse in this area is such that such language is typical. Blocking some, but not others, for personal attacks risks raising tension even further. Whether you like it or not, you will now be considered "involved" in the eyes of many of the participants. Expect the Vk et al defense team to file motion at AN/I shortly... Rockpocket 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Elonka you have things backwards, using "Northern Irish" is frowned upon with Northern Ireland in this situation more WP:NPOV. Now The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Now the question once again is, how does the person self identify? If there is no source to support either Irish or British, then "Northern Ireland Footballer" is the default. So your question "can anyone provide a link to a source, that says that 'Northern Irish' is a pejorative term" is irrelevant. As to Vin's block, one question. Who was the incivility and personal attacks directed at? As far as I can see it was not directed at anyone, therefore being blocked for bad language is simply wrong. I will obviously bring it up on ANI, and since rock has a lot of tolerance of personal attacks their comments here are strange to say the least. That they have unblocked an editor with a history of personal attacks, after an attack on Vin says quite a lot. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Northern Ireland / Northern Irish issue, my talkpage is not the location to debate this question of content. Please remember that one of the tenets of the community sanction on Troubles-related articles (see {{Troubles restriction}}) is "All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions." So please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and file a request on the articles in question. Other options are to request opinions from WP:BLPN, or to file an RfC, but my genuine advice is that RM is probably the simplest option. To be clear: Anyone who continues to try and argue about this naming matter, rather than requesting advice from neutral parties, could be perceived as violating the sanctions. If you're not sure how to file an RM request, please ask and I'll be happy to show you how. --Elonka 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Coming from WP:FOOTY, I would like to say that we discourage the use of nationalities in the disambiguation of footballers names for precisely this reason i.e. it causes conflict and complaints over identity. Therefore these two articles should be located at Trevor Thompson (footballer born 1936) and Bobby Campbell (footballer born 1956); I would suggest you move them there. I would do so myself but feel it would be better for you to do it as the involved admin. Kind regards, GiantSnowman 18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no preference on article title, and as an administrator, I am not even allowed to get involved in questions of content. However, I strongly encourage you to file a "Requested Move" request at the article's talkpage. In short: There are two ways that the article could be moved to a different title at this point: (1) The editors at the talkpage come to an agreement on how to proceed; or (2) A consensus is developed through some other mechanism (WP:RM, WP:RFC, or one of the dispute resolution noticeboards). Bottom line: Please take this to the article talkpage. --Elonka 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I have started two RMs for Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer) and Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer); your input would be most appreciated. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, it'll be nice to get this settled! :) --Elonka 15:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR report

Elonka could you have a look at this 1RR report. It is a very clear case, and yet an editor can come along and close it? Now is it the case that editors can only be blocked for 1RR depending on which Admin you get to review the report? --Domer48_'fenian' 10:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, this was a little WP:POINTy on your part, but I went ahead and blocked the anon for 24. To answer your question though: Yes, it can absolutely depend on the admin. It's very possible that admins can have reasonable disagreements on how to deal with a particular situation. --Elonka 16:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not directing your attention to the IP, but the report before it. So just that we are clear on it, you can violate 1RR but as to getting blocked for it, well that depends on the Admin who deals with it? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, admins can, and are expected to, use their own judgment in how to deal with a particular situation, especially in borderline cases. --Elonka 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That was not a borderline case. It was a clear 3RR on a 1RR article. Expect to see this on ANI alot, because this is what happened before. Selective application by Admin’s! While I am and was a strong supporter of 1RR I’ll not support being subject to the whims of any Admin. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Elonka in light of your comments here here I think you'll agree that this latest personal attack and assumptions of bad faith by this editor being well aware as they are of your comments above is a bit much. Coupled with their comments here here and here not to mention equally uncivil edit summaries it needs to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to block someone today, for something they said a week or a month ago. Please wipe the slate clean, and try to just move forward? --Elonka 16:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about blocking anyone, I said it needs to be addressed. So no problem on my part with you doing nothing to address it, as long as your going to be consistent. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikidots

I notice that the Wikidots proposal and our discussion of it have been deleted. Is it possible to get a copy of the whole of the page? Bielle (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC) If you don't want it on site any more, my email access is open. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The proposal was certainly yours but about half the commentary I wrote. If you don't want to provide your text, perhaps you would be kind enough to email me a copy of my contributions. I can't seem to find the exchanges in my contributions' list. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If my contributions turn out to be as you have stated, then I doubt I will keep them long. I would like to decide that for myself, though. Email keeps it all still off site. Thanks, Bielle (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving copy of text to Bielle's talk for the sake of continuity. Responding there. Bielle (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

5000 vs 20000

Looks like the DYK for Jim Sanborn created 5000 more hits while Kryptos gained over 20000+. Easy to tell where the interest is focused. Maybe Kryptos would be better focus for start-> GA -> FA nomination. Also appears to be quite abit more information availible. I am unfortunately having great difficulty abtaining information on his background. He seems not to share much with media, which is his right, but also makes it difficult to write the portions needed for GA. Also I believe more collaberation would be found on the latter article. Any thoughts? Calmer Waters 15:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Kryptos will be the easier sell, and there are many more sources on the sculpture than on Sanborn. There will also be two more articles about Kryptos coming out next month, in the non-fiction anthology Secrets of the Lost Symbol. One will be about the fact & fiction of Kryptos in Brown's The Lost Symbol, and the other will be an interview with Sanborn. --Elonka 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nazzadar

Well, It wasn't inadvertently. I just thought that was the place. I thought the cases could be followed with more info added.

Now I read that that forum is for incidents and this is more like a systematic behavior.  franklin.vp  03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for

helping clean up the List of sculptors. red ink in those sorts of places is like a red flag to this bull and it is nice to run into other bulls every now and then. Carptrash (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, agreed. Those redlinks on lists tend to cause an immediate kneejerk cleanup response on my part, as well. --Elonka 16:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice here that you are an admin, so perhaps you can help me. I uploaded two maps, really the same map twice, but the colors that uploaded are NOT what I created in my computer, so they should be made to go away. They are File:Pre-historic Pueblo lands.jpg and File:Pueblo lands.jpg. They are and always will be orphans, and I'll continue trying to create the map in want and need. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

Hi Elonka, I saw that you posted for the first time in a while on the al-Durrah page. I just want to clarify that you're there as an editor, and not as an admin. Given the amount of adminning you did there before, I would personally see you as too involved to continue to be an admin on that page. I mean no disrespect by that, so please don't take it that way. It's just a question of sustained involvement.

As for the page move you commented on, I've posted a poll per WP:RM on the talk page. SlimVirgin 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I've never edited the article, nor do I have any intention to do so. I have no opinion on the content or title, but will help out as an admin as I can. --Elonka 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think when one of the main editors of the article—someone you neither took nor threatened admin action against—objects, that's something you ought to respect. That's all I want to say about it for now, as it's currently a moot point. SlimVirgin 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did issue cautions towards you in relation to the al-Durrah article. In any case, your concerns are duly noted; however, per the case wording, "Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." --Elonka 01:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did you issue a caution to me? SlimVirgin 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of a gentle one: --Elonka 01:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a caution, Elonka, just as my note to you here is not a caution. Had you left me a caution over al-Durrah, I'd have taken it to AN/I. Look, I'd prefer not to go through the reasons here that I'm asking you not to take admin action, because it would involve more writing than I'd prefer to do right now, and there's no point in discussing something in depth that hasn't happened. But if you do take admin action, I'll definitely go to AN/I with the reasons. SlimVirgin 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any administrator's action is of course subject to review and discussion by other uninvolved admins. --Elonka 02:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your responses strongly illustrate the problem, Elonka. SlimVirgin 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a response are you looking for? --Elonka 02:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find this list of articles?

I ask because I've had ongoing problems with this article on a 19th-century trial and execution of three Fenians after murdering a police sergeant, and if possible I'd like to have it added. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no official list, it's just anything related to the Troubles, and "when in doubt, assume it is related." See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies, and the other community discussions at the bottom of the page at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. I took a quick look at Manchester Martyrs and didn't see any recent disruption, but it wouldn't hurt to put the {{Troubles restriction}} template on the top of the talkpage there. --Elonka 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If my memory serves, there was an AE clarification at some point after I blocked someone who edited Black and Tans when on probation under the same remedy. The gist if which is that anything that could be reasonably considered as related (even historically so, before the Troubles began) and was plagued by the same issues, could be placed under the remedy by an uninvolved admin. I wouldn't suggest doing it yourself, though, Malleus, given you have edited it recent. Perhaps a quick note at AE would be sufficient to get the attention of another admin. Rockpocket 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No thread at AE is needed. The wording is, "When in doubt, assume it is related." --Elonka 02:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, someone is going to have to add the template and make the other editors aware of the editing sanction. We can't exactly tolerate editors going past 1RR one day then suddenly sanction someone the next. It seems prudent that the person doing that job is uninvolved. Rockpocket 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason there's been no recent disruption is because the page was protected for a while after the most recent outbreak, and nobody, myself included, has gone back to it since. I'm going to do as Elonka suggests, and tag the article. Don't see the need for AE, it's a clear-cut case. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for the advice Elonka. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't check the history and thus incorrectly assumed it was current, rather than latent, problems you were referring to. I think I may add it to black and tans too, on a similar basis. Rockpocket 03:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up..

Sorry, I forgot to notify you.. I've taken the whole Domer and VK thing over to ANI, to try to get this settled before it REALLY gets out of hand. is the link :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd been watching, but thanks for the notification anyway.  :) I do have to admit to being a bit perplexed as to why an ANI thread is needed, since it seems pretty straightforward to me: Domer48 was disruptive, I placed him under probation. Also, it's hard to say how there could be bias on my part, since I put one editor from each "side" on probation at exactly the same time: Domer48 and Mooretwin. Concerning Domer's claim that he's going to ignore the probation, I tend to just ignore that as fist-shaking. Because though he's been saying that he's not going to abide by it (or by the previous page ban placed by Angus), actions speak louder than words, and his behavior does appear to be respecting the newest restrictions. Anyway, if he violates the probation, he runs the risk of being blocked, by me or any other uninvolved administrator who wants to help out with arbitration enforcement. I do understand though that this is a highly volatile area, and that emotions run deep (generationally deep) on some of these issues. Since I'm a new admin on the scene, I'm still coming up to speed on the backstory. So if you feel that an ANI thread is appropriate, I'll trust your judgment. --Elonka 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Award

I think you have now earned this Elonka. Keep up the good work you are doing.

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For helping enforce good editor behavior at Troubles-related articles. John (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)