Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 21 April 2011

More Credo accounts

Hi Iridescent, some more Credo accounts are available, and we've been asked to draw up criteria; see here.

I wanted to ask about something you said last time, that all UK residents can join any UK public library. Looking at Westminster as an example, you can join, but you have to go there to show proof of residence before you can pick up your card. So I'm wondering how realistic that would be for most Wikipedians. I want to write the criteria in a way that excludes people who genuinely have easy online access, but I don't want to, in effect, exclude all Brits just because they could join other libraries in theory.

Or have I misunderstood the library thing, and it really is easy for all British residents to join any public library? SlimVirgin 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, anyone is entitled to join the public library system operated by their local authority. This will give them access to any public library run by that local authority. The authority may or may not make a separate charge for eg access to online publication databases - it depends what they've got, and whether it's more trouble to collect the fees than it's worth. You often need to call at the library in person with proof of ID, but some libraries (ours for instance) will issue you a library card over the internet, and post the card to the address given (I think they may check adult tickets against the Electoral Roll). Users do not have to live in the district to join the library. In the UK, many university libraries will accept community readers (ie not connected to the university). Whether you can borrow books depends on the university, as does whether there is a fee, but it gives access to whatever online publication databases the library has access to. Hope this helps. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Elen, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin 18:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Elen's correct, in that while every UK authority is obliged to allow any UK resident to join their libraries, how they go about this varies. Some allow you to do the whole thing remotely; some allow you to register online but demand you come in to show identity before you're activated; some insist on you coming in to sign up.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the UK (and particularly England) is a lot smaller and more densely packed than Canada. Unless you live in Northern Ireland or the more remote parts of Scotland, you'll almost certainly be within an hour's travel of at least half a dozen local authorities (and in the big conurbations of the southeast and northwest, anything up to fifty; remember, London alone contains 33 separate local authorities).

Regarding anything to do with public services in the UK, be careful when saying anything is or isn't available. The ConDem cuts programme is now in full flow, and local authorities are having their budgets cut by around 8% per annum. With so much of budgets being services which can't realistically be cut (roads, child protection, garbage collection etc etc), this in practice is translating into a massive slash-and-burn of anything deemed non-essential, and libraries are very much in the latter category. Meanwhile, universities in England have had their budgets cut by £449 million, and "helping a bunch of slackers publish stuff for free which directly competes with the products sold by their own presses" is unlikely to be very high up their list of priorities. – iridescent 19:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have wondered what tangible effects the budget cuts are having in the Old Dart, seems so abstract from over here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Think the entire span of the Howard government in Australia, condensed down into a one-year period. Because the coalition government's so unstable, they're ramming through as much as possible at the start. The Liberals are belatedly realising that they're taking the blame for anything unpopular the government does, but the Conservatives get the credit for any successes—at the last byelection the Liberal candidate trailed in sixth behind an anti-Europe pressure group, a neo-Nazi and some random guy who ran as an independent. There is a good case to be made for getting all the cuts out of the way at the start rather than an extended drip-drip-drip of bad news for five years, but I don't envy the at least 490,000 people (government figure, so the reality will probably be higher) who are being fired from the public sector all at once as the cuts go in. – iridescent 23:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Erg. Well we just had this here. Doesn't sound as bad though, best thing is that Barry O'Farrell appears to be what we call here a small 'l' liberal...State government funds education and hospitals while federal gov't here funds GPs etc. Confusing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. There seems to be a problem with our article on Barry O'Farrell. While it is quite lengthy, it fails to mention his positions on the most important issues facing the world today, such as gay marriage, flag-burning, and the teaching of alternatives to evolution in schools. Also, our article completely fails to discuss the status of O'Farrell's birth certificate, nor his dependence on a teleprompter, nor whether his wife thinks we should eat more vegetables. Please bring this article up to American political standards. Thx. :P MastCell  18:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you; I am very pleased with that. I bought it this afternoon from PC world; I had no idea building a computer was so easy - it only took me about 45 minutes and then a very helpful Indian lady talked me through conncecting it to the internet (a small problem because I had forgotten the account pasword) and then that was it - all built and working - even a mouse with no wires that works through some form of magical radar. I can't think why all these people have to have boxes boasting about it, any fool can do it, so my box will encourage others to pioneer. I think I shall seek out a few more similar user boxes. Thanks again. Giacomo Returned 23:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Even back in the old days before it was a case of slotting modules together, building computers was always surprisingly easy. Although the big IBM and DEC behemoths that were the size of a small tower block always came preassembled, until the early 1980s "home computer" meant a big bag of microchips and a soldering iron, which one put together in the same way teenage boys made crystal radios—right down to nailing it to a piece of wood to serve as insulator. Malleus and Parrot could probably reminisce for hours on the topic. (The other Thing They Don't Want You To Know is that almost every PC component is replaceable; rather than pay a fortune to replace your old computer, it's usually perfectly straightforward to yank out the old processor and drop in a snazzy new one.) – iridescent 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What a pity you did not think to mention that £699 ago!!!! Giacomo Returned 23:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently open cases

Do you intend to be active on the two cases that are currently open? NW (Talk) 16:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Coanda is almost done-and-dusted and my appearance would just complicate things, while I think I ought to recuse from Enforcement, given my past public expressions of frank opinions regarding some of the parties involved. If it makes things easier for me to post formal recusals from those two, let me know. – iridescent 17:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be an issue, considering that you're already listed as inactive for both cases. Are you going to recuse from Rodhullandemu as well? NW (Talk) 20:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Recusing from RH&E; I have a very definite prior involvement there. – iridescent 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish I was on ArbCom after all

Bishonen | talk 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC).

Full points for trying, anyway. (In fairness, he's obviously upset, and the whole thing will probably be water under the bridge by next morning.) – iridescent 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. He probably wasn't in a state to notice, much, but I actually did try to advise him in a friendly way. Not perhaps my best blade, I guess. Bishonen | talk 01:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbo Wales for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Note

For future reference, I agree 100% with your reasoning here. Raul654 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth adding a section on the relative significance of various types of anniversaries to your FA Thoughts page. This is (presumably) not the last time the issue will come up, and it might save arguments if there were something concrete to point to. (Plus, it's perfectly possible that someone will be working away somewhere trying to raise an article to FA status in time for the anniversary of its subject's death; if it were clearer what is and isn't usable, it might save on bad feeling further down the line.)

Although I agree with the thinking, in some ways how we do things is inconsistent; aside from a few people born into royal families, any given subject's birth almost certainly received less coverage (and hence less "notability" in Misplaced Pages terms) than their death, but I doubt many people would consider birthdates an inappropriate anniversary. I wouldn't be sorry to see TFA selection policy changed to "only the anniversaries of events for which the subject is primarily remembered" and ditch birthdates altogether unless the birthday itself is significant (celebrated as a public holiday in their honor, say), but I can't see that one flying—it would exclude too many people who led a notable life but without a particular defining event. – iridescent 22:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're an arb?

Wow! I've been way out of the loop. Then again, I've been kind of away from the whole wiki-politics then for awhile now. I was even proud that my main page edit percentage slowly rose to around 70% in the past 100 edits. I'll still always remember you as the one to save Antonine Centre and completely rewrite it from scratch...almost four years ago! hbdragon88 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again! Yes an arb of sorts—I'm not a very active one.

I still have a fondness for those shopping mall articles, even though they're looking dated now—given the impact these places have on their communities, people tend not to appreciate just how significant even a relatively small shopping mall is both architecturally and economically. (I'd wager that even the mangiest strip-mall gets more visitors-per-day than the average cathedral.) At some point I need to clean a few of them up, but don't hold your breath for it. – iridescent 22:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted closure

I disagree with your closure of WP:AN #Peter_Damian_block_violates_WP:IAR. I concede that my initial post was clumsy and incomplete. However, I belief that my elaboration has set this straight. I started the topic by placing the finger on what I saw as a “sore spot” under the assumption that a subsequent discussion would develop an adequate formulation of the problem. Accordingly, my post

1- is not an attempt to reinstate Peter Damian and

2- is not a discussion of the definition of ban versus block.

Specifically, the problem is the various allegations of the existence of an unhealthy “admin culture” at March 2011 Update. To address this problem I proposed

that a project group be formed to investigate the possibility that there are indeed instances of “admin culture” as currently being alleged at the Foundation (as mentioned above) and I further propose that it would be prudent to reinstate Peter Damian and invite him to join that project group.

The rationale for inviting Peter Damian is

1- as the saying goes “keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer” and

2- the precedent of the employment of hackers by security firms.

The problem of there being a possible “admin culture” is very serious and deserves proper discussion. I assume you closure was done in haste and I request you revert. -- Hpvpp (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My closure was not "done in haste", and I am not going to revert it. If you want to discuss this further, please email me. – iridescent 00:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in off-the-record dialog. If you are not prepared to keep this open I will lodge a complaint. -- Hpvpp (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to force you to cease posting on the matter—however, I strongly advise that you actually contact the user in question to ask him whether he wants to be unblocked at this time, given the conditions and restrictions which would be attached to any unblocking at present. I'd also suggest you examine the history of the user making the allegations of an "unhealthy admin culture". – iridescent 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Iridescent's comments. Your actions here are not necessarily in the interests of the person you are trying to help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither you nor Iridescent has read what I wrote. My principal interest is not in helping Peter Damian, but in sorting out this alleged “admin culture”. -- Hpvpp (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Pardon me for not being clear, I meant that I would do a simple search first, then go deeper if necessary, and that the page doesn't necessarily have to meet WP:RS or WP:VERIFY. And that the "simple search" is not my sole platform for decision. I will be going to bed shortly. Rehman 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: Perhaps because of the very wide generalization of the question, the answer has not been understood in the context in which it was given. If a specific question could be forwarded, perhaps the answer could come out much better? And the relevant command over CSD could also be tested. Rehman 16:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point, and it's an fundamental point as regards the way en-wiki operates. The question is explicitly about A7, and speedy deletion has nothing to do with sourcing—the fact that you're even mentioning "WP:RS or WP:VERIFY" shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Misplaced Pages's deletion processes work. Since you're explicitly saying you want to be active in speedy deletion—and since misapplication of CSD is one of the fastest ways in which new users can be driven off—I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of you having the ability to delete pages, as I can easily imagine you deleting new articles because you feel the sourcing is inadequate or missing. – iridescent 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not mean that. Maybe I'm going haywire because I'm staying up late to answer questions. I'll be back tomorrow. (Yes, I do start my day very early). Rehman 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rehman, I think the issue is that you haven't mentioned once (or even clearly alluded to) the fact that A7 is based on a credible assertion of importance or significance. I can't read your mind, but all I can say is that, as you haven't discussed anything about the claim of notability (sourced or not), your answer is being interpreted as focusing on a Google search rather than on what is actually in the article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your comment above ('…that the "simple search" is not my sole platform for decision') makes it clear that you do mean that. Searching and sourcing have nothing to do with speedy deletion, and the fact that you keep mentioning it indicates that you don't understand either how Misplaced Pages's deletion processes work, nor why they're (very intentionally) set up that way. – iridescent 16:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider at Q5, that was a genuine human weakpoint. Rehman 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just read your answer to Q5 and you're still talking about searching and verification. Misplaced Pages's speedy deletion process is very explicitly set up to judge only on the basis of content of the articles and not in terms of searching and verification; that you're still talking in these terms seems to show me that you don't understand how deletion works on en-wiki, and more importantly why it's set up in this intentionally cumbersome manner. Being an admin at Commons is irrelevant to this; although both are owned by the WMF and they work closely together on occasion, Commons has very little in common with en-wiki when it comes to policy. (Neither WP:NOR nor WP:NPOV, the two basic rules underlying all Misplaced Pages's content policies, apply on Commons.) – iridescent 07:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Little me?

Timid little me block an arb? No, no. That was Bishzilla. And what a good illustration it is of the deplorable state of RfA that Bishzilla made admin, while it seems impossible for Malleus. I'm sure he'd make an excellent admin. Instead, we get twelve-year-olds opposing on the strength of "maturity issues." Fuck that. I mean, what a waste. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC).

Maturity n.: A positive character trait shared by everyone who agrees with you.

Immaturity n. A negative character trait shared by every poopy-pants pee-pee head who disagrees with you.

—Source: wp:wikispeak

Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking

I've been taken a lot from you lot today and have been labelled "talking useless bollocks" and"Troll" by Pedro who quite frankly has done nothing constructive to wikipedia in years. If you can't see that my comments are light hearted and intended in good jest rather than homophobic or racist then I am very sorry. You of all people should know by know that bringing on the civility BS at me is the least constructive thing you can do and in fact if nobody had made a mountain out of my response then the conservation on Malleus's talk page would not have taken place. It is pointless attacks from non contributors like Pedro who have nothing better to do other than observe my "behaviour" that make such situations unfold. You of all people should know by now that I'm not the sort to tolerate such nonsense and that blocking me would be the dumbest thing you could possibly do. I will not comment any further on this on Malleus's talk page and will continue editing to prevent any unrelated admin going to an extreme but you disappoint me with your outlook on this at the end of what was imply just a frickin infobox and map I had made added in good faith. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who "you lot" are supposed to be, but the issue is not infoboxes; the info is that you're making blatantly homophobic and racist edits. Regardless of how funny you think you're being, not everyone shares your sense of humor, and you don't seem to understand this. Per the many previous comments to you, you're past the point at which many admins would be considering a lengthy or even an indef block; please cool down and don't dig yourself any deeper into this hole. – iridescent 20:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I simply questioned why you and Malleus stuck so strongly together with Giano at my post to him and the truth is I simply get a comical impression of Pedro being a little Spanish waiter and always have whenever i've seen his name at RFC . Sorry if it is offensive but what he said inflamed a situation which had already died down and I sorted out my issues with Risker by email. It was not me who turned it into a conservation about anal sex or racism. It was gross exaggeration of what was originally said that sparked it off. I guess I shouldn't have said anything but I don't like being told I'm wrong and then have you and Malleus who I thought was on better terms with now turn up to seemingly gang up on me. If it was just one editor that would be fine but the fact you also turned up looked like you relished the chance to put Blofeld in this place. The bizarre thing in this is that my edit which I thought was constructive and I made a map especially and it turned into accusations of homophobia and raciasm which to be honest with you is very extreme. During all this I've been trying to move forward constructively and indeed address the issue about infoboxes civilly with Giano. But one editor upon another stacking attacks on what I've said always adds fuel to the fire and I'm not content for people to talk about me like that. As soon as Giano indicated he knew what I said wasn't intended maliciously, jsut a conflict of views, he cleared the air. And did you notice how I suddenly started speaking civilly and maturely to him? I dish back what I'm fed. Start accusing me of things and making situations worse than they really are always brings out the worst in me and one post after another about "bum sex" turns in a juvenile conservation which turns into something rather embarassing for intelligent adults on here. Sure i like a bit of crude humor, but would certainly rather do it in an environment where people are not attacking each other but laughing together.

Now I apologise if your perception was that I was out of line or whatever. But once again it is the judgements of editors and playing the moral judge which are too blame for this current scenario. Refrain from making judgements about me and attacking me and I'll refrain from heated debates and talking pointlessly and unconstructively. In this instance I am glad you and Malleus were not active in the attacks on me and I think it is likely because you know this, the others who commented against me didn't . No I dislike having any edits I make reverted and especially multiple editors turning out one by one to make bad light of them which is what started this. The fact of the matter is still that the decision to have an infobox or not in the Winter Palace is a personal choice of the editors who wrote it, there;s no policy which says I was wrong to add an infobox or indeed that nobody wants them. I think the infobox or without and larger image has its strengths. Personally I would rather wikipedia was consistent as possible. Maps are my thing, I can make a close view birds eye view of the palace locations to add to the article if it is desired. Believe it or not I would rather not get into conflicts but one thing leads to another and before you know it a simple infobox adding procedure turns into a ludricrous situation where you are being accused of some rather serious allegations. I'm far better than to stoop as low as juvenile conservations, so people taking swipes at me clearly want to bring out the worst rather than the best in me. "Your thirdly" post was exactly what started this whole ordeal. Didn't it occur to you that your vote stacking might provoke a strong reaction, or is that what you wanted, you appear to dislike me, so you rejoice in pointing out my errors and making a fool of myself? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK this edit is not acceptable. You can support Giano all you like but NOBODY has a right to remove good faith GA nominations. That's disruption. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Giano's explanation seems quite fair. According to your user page you're on a wikibreak and as Giano isn't interested in GA a reviewer would probably be wasting their time. Nev1 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use remindersYogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm recused from this case due to prior involvement with one of the parties, and that won't change come what may. – iridescent 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Noun "due to", verb "owing to". There's really no excuse for this kind of slackness Iridescent. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Even I knew that and I'm foreign, we will have to strictly enforce grammar soon, or we shall have split infinitives next. Giacomo Returned 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I do stick to that when it gets to FAC level, but I've never been convinced by it. "Due to" always sounds more accurate—compare the Google hits on "closed due to" (5.3 million) vs "closed owing to" (150,000, and probably most of those are pedants making the same point). There comes a point when "overwhelming common use" trumps "what Fowler's says". – iridescent 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Necro-bump: Soft-block of School IPs

Some people do come up with some wonderful time wasting proposals at the VP - even in good faith. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see the arguments—regardless of whether I agree or not—for abolishing IP editing altogether, but sorting between "good" and "bad" IPs would be a, um, courageous idea. – iridescent 07:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(add) Looks like a brand-new user who thinks they've spotted what we've been doing wrong for the last ten years. Be gentle. – iridescent 07:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. The other thing we did wrong was to allow just anybody to be a new page patroller. If the other RfC gets its way, it might be a problem solved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP

If you restore defamatory attacks on a living person, I will block you. Fences&Windows 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You could. I'd suggest you be extremely confident that you're in the right, though, since the content you're edit-warring to remove is very clearly the personal opinion of one editor, as expressed on a {{noindex}}ed page. To save you looking, the relevant line of WP:BLP is "and not related to making content choices"; since the comment in question is an editor discussing whether a particular person is a serious academic or a WP:FRINGE theorist (a matter on which I have no opinion) their credibility is obviously material related to making a content choice; if you're primly removing swearing from a thread about swearing, you're stifling debate and trying to force the decision your way, even if in this case I'd tend to agree. (If you really think "nutjob" qualifies as a gross personal attack, though, I envy you.) – iridescent 21:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Iridescent is a nutjob. Please tell me this warrants a block. --Moni3 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Careful, Moni. Aren't you the one who committed this grave BLP violation? – iridescent 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That clearly is my post, but that statement is as honest, true, and verifiable as what was written on stones given to Moses. I challenge anyone to claim it a violation of the BLP policy. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This exchange demonstrates one of the differences between an arbitrator and a lowly lout like myself. My reply to Fences' nonsense would have been a little more direct and a lot shorter, consisting of only seven letters arranged into a well-known phrase or saying. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Marry me"? There's a danger in being ambiguous, Malleus :-P. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not enough "f"s in "marry me". The danger in not being ambiguous is that some officious clot of an administrator ... well, you know the rest. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed. Of course, if you had said "marry me" to F&W in response to the initial comment, someone likely would've felt justified in blocking you for being off your rocker. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I think though that in my small way I've given administrators pause for thought before they impose daft blocks on established editors, which is a good thing. Did I ever tell you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Or GWH's five-second block? Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You've mentioned it once or twice. One can always hope. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(re Malleus's original post) One thing which is noticeable to me—and I shouldn't have been surprised—is that there's a reason so many Misplaced Pages higher functionaries communicate publicly in that strange stilted lecture-to-the-royal-society-of-tax-lawyers style. (This seems to apply across the spectrum, from Jimmy Wales himself through to Alison.) When one always has the knowledge at the back of one's mind that anything you say can be taken as a public pronouncement and waved at one of the drama boards in support of some wiki-crusade or other, it forces one to be very measured and pedantic with the wording of anything said for public consumption; Bradspeak is a virtually inevitable consequence. This isn't peculiar to Misplaced Pages, as anyone who's had any dealings with politicians, CEOs or high-ranking military and police will know, but it is interesting (to me) how strong this particular pressure is, even in an environment like Misplaced Pages which prides itself on its (generally artificial) unstuffiness. – iridescent 18:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)