Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 22 February 2011

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Season 3

Something went wrong with this diff

Do edits mainly constitute 'cleanup' etc?

Hi HJ,
I came across an article of which one of the most recent editors made a number of changes. These included removing apparently properly sourced material, and also choices about what was utterly erradicated and what was newly added, gave me the impression of showing a partial interest about the political party described in the article. It is neither done without talent, nor unintelligently, as many of the changes are decent improvements that match the edit comment "Major overhaul; i.e. cleanup, rewritten, updated; removed; content better placed in VBlok article, unsourced content, trivia, overemphasised events, outdated content etc.", and nevertheless managed to support the picture the party may prefer, while leaving in most of the all too well-known for the party undesired aspects:
I then checked the user's edits and found a similar one had occurred on the article about the criminally condemned predecessor of that party: .

The user's block log showed you having accorded him/her with 'trusted editor' status. As I consider you to be quite impartial to the article topic, perhaps you should have a good look. For instance, the 'political trial' theme is those parties' politicians' negation of Belgian Law. It fits the political accusations of these parties' policy of depicting themselves as victims of the establishment. Eliminating the (to M. Storme) attributing text and thus leaving 'political trial' presented as if a fact... For that term to be encyclopedically correct, the case should have been brought before Assises Court. In the other article the appeal court's motivation that legally substantiated its ruling, became merely 'claiming'. Text about L. Lamine's claims of 'self-victimizing' is moved from the current party's article to its dismantled one's, thus showing the current party according to its more recent policy of presenting itself as clean and correct with better dressed identical politicians; the claim however, came after the change of the party name and is about the transition policy. And that theme of 'self-victimizing' is no longer mentioned anywhere, it was rephrased to the vague 'for propaganda reasons'. Updated? Trivia? Not quite. Clever, though. I do not wish to guide you to what further bothers me, rather letting you analyse things for yourself. Kind regards,​▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-14 03:36-03:54 (UTC)

RE: Tony Blair

Your suspicion is justifiable, but I can explain. I have never had the page on my watchlist, but it is a subject which interests me. I read the article and thought it was good. I also thought that for a subject of such high interest, a high-quality article is important, and a GA review can do wonders for an article. With regards to your concerns, I guarantee I am committed enough. I honestly can't promise you that I am knowledgeable enough, but I'm currently studying politics and have done work experience in the Palace of Westminster – I let you make your own mind up!! Thanks. —Half Price 16:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well knowledge can be gained through research (I'm actually three-quarters of the way though his autobiography and have an A-level in politics, so I'm probably in a good position to judge the article's comprehensiveness), I just want to be sure that any concerns I come up with aren't going to be left unanswered. You also need to understand that this won't be an overnight process—it could take several weeks, if not months, but if you know what you're getting yourself into, I'm happy to take it on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready when you are! —Half Price 16:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck. As the only editor to get a British prime minister to FA (Neville Chamberlain), I assure you it is like running uphill under heavy fire.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write "Pah! The British managed it at Spion Kop". Then I realised that they didn't and I was actually thinking about the film Zulu! Doh! —Half Price 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ermenikend

I think your protection ran out on that article, and the recent history is nothing but IPs edit-warring... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

edits

Hey,

I started a discussion at Template talk:Talkback#Styling regarding the change that (probably fairly) warranted this revert. We've got a few "user note" type templates right now which all used hand-hacked divs instead of centralised styling like most message boxes; IMO we should migrate them all to do so, either using {{tmbox}} or a new design if (as suggested in that edit summary) there's general agreement that {{tmbox}} is unsuitable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've no objection to what you were trying to achieve—you were trying to make the template space more accessible to idiots like me, which can only be a good thing, but the turd colour really doesn't look great when the template is employed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection of The Amazing Race 18

I probably should have contacted you first about this. I have requested unprotection of The Amazing Race 18 at WP:RFPP. My full rationale for this request is at RFPP. —KuyaBriBri 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lifting of topic ban

Hello, you previously told me that you might lift my topic ban after one month. I was also blocked one day before the topic ban came into effect.

I am now asking if you could lift my topic ban (?) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)