| Revision as of 22:30, 31 July 2011 editLvhis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,621 edits →Senkaku Islands: sorry forgot "Hi"← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:32, 31 July 2011 edit undoMagog the Ogre (talk | contribs)Administrators100,710 edits →Senkaku Islands: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
| Was Lvhis breaking the BRD cycle there? ] (]) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | Was Lvhis breaking the BRD cycle there? ] (]) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :] '''Blocked''' – for a period of '''24 hours'''. <!-- Template:AN3 -->] (]) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Magog the Ogre, I originally planned to post this in the section "BRD on SI" of this page but am just surprisedly aware that there has been a big word wall there already (I did not put your talk page in my watchlist). So I am posting my enquiry here that is for me to avoid to break the BRD cycle indeliberately again. I and other editors have had discussions on the changes as mentioned by John Smith's above in the section "Leas section" of that ]. All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified. I have also taken the suggestions from Penwhale and Bob and revised the proposed draft . Since 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) there has been no relevant discussions about this "Lead section" there. Can I go ahead to make an edit in ] as proposed in that discussion, as finishing the "D" of this cycle of "BRD"? --] (]) 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC) | ::Hi Magog the Ogre, I originally planned to post this in the section "BRD on SI" of this page but am just surprisedly aware that there has been a big word wall there already (I did not put your talk page in my watchlist). So I am posting my enquiry here that is for me to avoid to break the BRD cycle indeliberately again. I and other editors have had discussions on the changes as mentioned by John Smith's above in the section "Leas section" of that ]. All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified. I have also taken the suggestions from Penwhale and Bob and revised the proposed draft . Since 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) there has been no relevant discussions about this "Lead section" there. Can I go ahead to make an edit in ] as proposed in that discussion, as finishing the "D" of this cycle of "BRD"? --] (]) 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, that should be fine - the D has been satisfied in the cycle, bringing it back to B. But if you're R'ed, remember to continue to D before B ]<!--template:smiley-->. ] (]) 22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Repeated deletions for Eric T. Kool == | == Repeated deletions for Eric T. Kool == | ||
Revision as of 22:32, 31 July 2011
| -----> FAQ: My Maps <----- |
Would you mind reviewing this block please?
Hi, sorry to trouble you but could you review this ban please. ] It seems to me very improper and outside the limits of the sanctions for the article the IP was working on. Also indefinite site-wide bans cannot be enacted without an AN/I first. Even if the editor who seems to contribute on 2 or 3 computers, was behaving disruptively (which I dispute, he/she was in disagreement with a couple of other editors and should be allowed to reply when sources he/she cited are questioned), this ban is completely over-the-top. There has been bad faith towards this editor/s by at least one other editor on the discussion page, even going as far as alleging the IP has an agenda, when clearly it is at most an IP with a pov. Their contributions have been useful in the discussion and another editor has said this. I suspect the IP did not know he was blocked from the talk page. The blocks have been very poorly explained. DMSBel (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree; I've thought for a while that JzG is all too eager to hand out bans. However, policy restrains me from simply undoing it, as does common sense (which tells me the editor is probably being at least somewhat disruptive). I'll take a look at it, but I suggest opening a thread at ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou, I realise the IP has expressed some strong disagreement in regard to a couple of other editors comments. However they generally have responded well in the past when merely warned. The blocking seems to just be exasperating an otherwise civil and valuable editor. I too have a few concerns regarding the IPs participation in the discussion, but they are only over quite minor things. General Sanctions on Abortion and related articles limits blocks to at most 3 months. But I am more concerned with baiting of the IP on the discussion page by a couple of editors. The IP has not been deceptive to my knowledge. If they have been using computers in different locations that is not unusual, though it might have been better for them to say this (assumimg of course they have not).DMSBel (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Block evasion is uncool, period. So is JzG's block (I note this is not the first time this has happened; worse, IIRC - and it's quite possible that I don't recall correctly - it may have been about abortion as well). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Assuming it is the same editor (and it probably is), one IP] opened a complaint against OM and ended up blocked 48hrs. I've been blocked too. I think in this case the IP genuinely did not know the block included the talk page, unless of course I have missed something. This IP definitely has a POV (at least IMO) but that is actually not always unhelpful for discussion and reaching a NPOV. At least thats how I look at it. Totally neutral editors on abortion are a pretty rare breed.DMSBel (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Something should be done, The ban JzG/Guy has placed is well beyond the general sanctions for the article. 3 months block max. And the IPs conduct comes nowhere near deserving the max sanction. The scope of their block was not explained, so its understandable they thought it only covered changes to the article. Guy's semi-protecting the talk page of abortion is stupid, it causes more disruption than letting the IP make his comments/discuss. DMSBel (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Did you take it to ANI? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind it being AN/Ied, but I'd prefer not to AN/I it myself. The amount of bad faith on the article in question seems to have resulted in this IP being confused with me, at least I can't figure out what is going on, and that seems to be a plausible answer, also another editor asked if this IP and I were the same editor. A WHOIS would show clearly we are not. I am in the UK, this IP is I am told in Florida. I have my own thoughts on what is going on at the article. I think that the IP simply has not known their block meant the talk page too. DMSBel (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that several administrators have already turned down the unblock request; I cannot do so unilaterally myself. Or I could, but I'd be ignoring policy, and that has bad results. Nevertheless, I'll take a further look into it later and try to come up with a coherent answer to both you and for the admins handling the issue. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I also have asked Guy to revert his ban and explain why he went beyond the general sanctions for the article. DMSBel (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want you to revert the ban yourself Magog. I understand your reasons entirely and agree you are wise for wanting to say within policy. Also I apologise for not being online to reply more promptly to you. If Guy/JzG removes the ban/block there will be no need for an AN/I to investigate it further. DMSBel (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can you point me to where the main discussion(s) is/are taking place? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't gone to AN/I yet, as it is better to try and resolve things first. So I asked another admin here: ]. There are links to all areas of the discussion in that section.DMSBel (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Per the discussion at RoyBoy's talk page, the best method to reinstate the IP in the community is to create an account. This sounds reasonable in view of the fact that edit warring to push a POV is certainly disruptive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
A clean slate once they register? DMSBel (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not a clean slate, no; there is a block or two in the history. But as RoyBoy said, there is really a way to move forward from here that's been given to the IP. I recommend registering and being upfront that the registered account is the same one as the IP, and then asking Guy for clarification if that is OK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone politely make it clear the to the IP that they are welcome back (as a registered user) and what the caveats are.DMSBel (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Also Magog, thanks for giving the matter your considered opinion. DMSBel (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I see you have explained things to the IP about the standard of conduct wikipedia expects. I don't blame him if he wonders why this is not expected of other editors and admin. Thanks anyway for giving the matter your attention. DMSBel (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is expected of other editors. The things I've asked of him are fairly common sense; the sort of thing that the average editor is doing without any effort. The fact I've required an acknowledgement from the IP is based off poor history. If we aren't expecting it from other editors, then that is a problem, not this (a la WP:WAX). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Re:File source problem with File:Moghulistan.PNG
Hello,
You left a comment on my talk page a few days ago. I just wanted to let you know that the issue has been corrected. I also took took the opportunity to upload a cleaner version of the image. If you should have any further issues with the content status of the image, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks. Ro4444 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- None at all. Thanks for coming back to clarify. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Cb1 cb2 structure.png
Your request on it.wikipedia: 
Done--Guidomac (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Peculiar goings-on with images
I notice that you recently had an involvement with Kumarrajendran regarding image problems, and that the contributor's page is chock-full of similar notices etc.
I have been having my own issues with a image file of that user (or, rather, an image filename, since they keep changing the image attached to it). I would be grateful for any advice because it is becoming messy, as per my message here, and my AGF is starting to become weak. I note also that of the previous images uploader by the contributor and which still remain, few if any are actually used on an article, few have a meaningful description and the copyright/licensing may well be suspect.
Am I being paranoid here or is my concern justified? - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is legitimate. The problem is the user appears to be mixing the good with the bad; it appears s/he has a lot of very legitimate pd-self uploads, but that s/he is adding in copyright violations in the meantime. I've blocked the account indefinitely pending a further explanation; too many of this user's uploads have been deleted as CV's. In the meantime, I recommend opening a case at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations so someone can take a look at the long term additions (and hopefully this someone can scrutinize the commons additions as well). Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks very much for delving into it and doing what you did. I do not work a lot with images, so it is good to have some input. I'll look at initiating a CCI, although they have one heck of a backlog there. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not enough of a backlog that it's not worth listing. Don't make me do it for you; I'm far too lazy.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Was done before your last. Something interesting has resulted from it regarding the personal connections of the user. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was afraid of that. That still doesn't answer questions about the modern pictures though (if it does answer questions about the older pictures). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Pro-Misplaced Pages
In part, I am writing to you because of your constructive comments here and here last May.
Please help me think through a strategy to combat the contrived appearance of an WP:edit war. I propose to use words like this in all future edit summaries at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute:
- This is a "PRO-WIKIPEDIA" edit. This edit is explained in detail and in advance on talk page
Please consider this pair of edits at Senkaku Islands dispute:
- diff 17:35, 19 July 2011 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (58,318 bytes) (Undid revision 440335859 by Lvhis pro-Misplaced Pages -- This revert explained in detail and in advance on talk page)
- diff 16:55, 19 July 2011 Lvhis (talk | contribs) (58,346 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Oda Mari (talk): This is a POV title. rv Japanese POV pushing. (TW))
The edit summary of Lvhis is an example of Framing (social science). IMO, we need to reject the false dilemma. Do you understand the meaning of the logical fallacy in a "false dilemma"?
Lvhis sets up a misleading pro vs con schema.
A better strategy is to emphasize a "pro-Misplaced Pages" foundation -- that is, to underscore that edits are not
|
|
|
In point of fact, an extensive edit history informs my belief that Oda Mari's interests are demonstrably "pro-Misplaced Pages" ....
The first and foremost question is: What is best for the long-term prospects of our collaborative editing project? What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll respond to you soon enough, but I'm not going to lie: I'm tired as heck of dealing with the stupidity in this issue and I'm ready to start throwing down sanctions (or, where not applicable, to ask the community to support them). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Since I mentioned your name in a thread on ANI, regarding the "sanctions" at Senkaku Islands, I figured I should notify you about it. The comment was made to support your action and try to get broader community approval so that the sanctions "stick". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK thanks. I had been planning to open up an ANI thread today. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I replied to you on Feezo's talk page. But simply: ArbCom normally don't rule on contents since... quite a while, in fact. Even the current version of WP:DR has "If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration." (emphasis original). That particular text has been on that page since this edit, back in Feb 2007. So ArbCom not ruling on content dispute isn't a recent occurrence. - Penwhale | 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but they do rule on who was acting like a pain in the rear end, and are willing to throw down blocks/bans/sanctions, correct? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. But on the islands article, due to the full protection there (For 4~5 months), the focus wouldn't be on the editorial actions there. It'd be purely on the dispute article. - Penwhale | 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, the players who've acted badly are consistent across both articles; with the partisans and incompetant gone, perhaps the sane could work out a reasonable middle-ground. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- -points out that you managed to typo "incompetent"- Eh. The problem with the Islands article is the fact that the contested tag is the sole reason the page got protected. Why haven't people done RfC on this thing; or did they do that already? - Penwhale | 20:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Pfft. Mediation has been attempted, and RFC's on at least two members (IIRC). Can't say any thing further for the RFC's. Also, not my fault: stupid Google spell check got stuck on Spanish, and it won't go away unless I clear out all the app data (which I'm not doing). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- RFC can be for contents too... - Penwhale | 03:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I know. But my point is only that the history of the page is so vast and ugly that we might as well have gone through 10 RFCs and it will not have made a difference. I find it quite likely that at very least one has been tried on the content. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have replied to ANI and gave my few cents. The thing is, while Pinnacle Islands would be the most neutral name used, it would make a whole set of people unhappy. And the fact that this discussion isn't being resolved means the validity of the NPOV-title tag is in place. I merely replaced the tag because it's the de facto situation at the moment. - Penwhale | 03:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyright problems with File:Alexander bronse police.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Alexander bronse police.jpg, please note that Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Alexander bronse police.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Alexander bronse police.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the source article. It says "This image made available on Sunday, Feb. 28, 2010 by Greek police", so it is obvious that Greek police released the image into the public domain. Innab (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
That's absolutely not correct; you're confusing publication with public domain. Unless the Greek police specifically state that they release the copyright for the document, it is still copyrighted. Please do not upload files that fall into this category. If you'd like clarification on the difference, you can ask any questions at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions where they will certainly clear up the difference. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Article states "image made available ... by Greek police". It is obvious that it made available to the public. Also, the image is "Fair use" as historical figure. Any copyrigh to the statue belong to Lysippos, but he died over a thousand years ago, so the copyright has expired. Innab (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see commons:Commons:CB#Replicas of PD artworks for why the Greek police currently own the rights to that photograph. And because anybody could take a photo of that artwork, we cannot use it under fair use either; see Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria#1. Am I making sense? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Senkaku Islands
The next person who I see break the WP:BRD cycle on this page will be blocked on sight.
Lvhis' first edit, trying to tie names to countries
I revert it (without removing the source) because it's misleading, clearly explaining why
Lvhis restores his edits of tying names to nationalities, just rephrasing it
Was Lvhis breaking the BRD cycle there? John Smith's (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Magog the Ogre, I originally planned to post this in the section "BRD on SI" of this page but am just surprisedly aware that there has been a big word wall there already (I did not put your talk page in my watchlist). So I am posting my enquiry here that is for me to avoid to break the BRD cycle indeliberately again. I and other editors have had discussions on the changes as mentioned by John Smith's above in the section "Leas section" of that talk page. All questions and challenges raised from other editors have been answered and clarified. I have also taken the suggestions from Penwhale and Bob and revised the proposed draft . Since 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) there has been no relevant discussions about this "Lead section" there. Can I go ahead to make an edit in that page as proposed in that discussion, as finishing the "D" of this cycle of "BRD"? --Lvhis (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that should be fine - the D has been satisfied in the cycle, bringing it back to B. But if you're R'ed, remember to continue to D before B
. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Repeated deletions for Eric T. Kool
- Eric T. Kool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User:Shadow600/Eric T. Kool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Research by scientists that is relatively new may not yet be well known. Thus research by these scientists often gets deleted because the research by these scientists are not well known (yet). This problem can be expected to occur repeatedly, even if the scientist and his research are the leaders in the world. This is the case with Eric T. Kool. Please note, I am not a relative or a member of his "fan club".
The new topic of synthetic biology deals (among other things) with synthetic DNA, synthetic mRNA, synthetic aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, synthetic codons, all of which (once mediated by ribosomes) can code for synthetic amino acids, to modify the field of proteomics to create synthetic proteomics. In addition, the field of synthetic biology Dr. Kool specializes in research that focuses upon synthetic DNA. Other, researchers specialize in the other areas of synthetic biology (P. Schultz, S. Benner, H. Murakami and M. Sisido, etc). These new areas of research touch upon more traditional areas already found in Misplaced Pages, which must also be modified accordingly. Thus in addition to modifying Synthetic Biology, other related areas must be modified, such as xDNA (already entered in Misplaced Pages, though the research was done by Eric T. Kool, the very researcher whose work was deleted from Misplaced Pages, and xDNA was not put on Misplaced Pages by me!) Also, the research by Dr. Kool affects Genetic code, codon, proteomics etc. The work by E. Kool, P. Schultz, S. Benner and others also affects material science, the creation and use of new materials, as found in nanotechnology.
I would like to make entries under several topics, and for several people, etc. as outlined above. Once again, I have never met or spoken to any of these researchers. I am not particularly biased in any direction, but it would be nice if Misplaced Pages editors allowed new information and new experts to be entered, as encyclopedias function best with correct and new informational updates. I am finding it frustrating to have Misplaced Pages editors remove the information faster than I can add it. If Misplaced Pages prefers not to keep abreast of scientific milestones, just say so.
Furthermore, as references are needed, rather than entering about 50 or more references, if a book exists that describes and explains these things with references already entered, isn't it a little smarter to reference such books, rather than make Misplaced Pages an encyclopedic list of thousands of references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow600 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The only deletion of which I'm aware is the one I performed on Eric T. Kool. I did this because the page did not specifically state how the subject is notable per WP:BIO; this does not mean that the subject isn't notable, but rather than the page didn't explain how he was notable. I also deleted the article as lacking enough context to understand the subject. I will break down the two sections which you wrote in it:
- The research by Eric T. Kool is in synthetic biology with applications in biotechnology and medicine, such as the development of synthetic pharmaceuticals. His work has included studies that focus upon bases in DNA and RNA other than A, C, G, T, and U.
- This was the only wording about the subject, and only essentially only told us he does research in synthetic biology. The wording is a bit circumspect, but it basically comes down to Eric T. Kool does work in synthetic biology and biotechnology, specifically DNA and RNA. This isn't really enough context to identify the subject.
- For example, xDNA. These new bases do not utilize the standard Watson-Crick bonds (and if extended, do not use Hoogstein bonds. By increasing the alphabet of bases possible in DNA and RNA, it may be possible to increase the possible genetic code with new synthetic codons which can also code for new amino acids to create a library of synthetic proteins, thus impacting proteomics.
- This probably should go in a separate section about his work; it works poorly as the lede (see that link for an example on how to write a lede).
- However, upon further review, this was probably a poor decision on my part, even if the article had significant structural issues, for the simple reason that both the context and the notability of the subject was in fact located within the infobox. Really, a lot of that material should be explained in prose in the subject's article.
- What I'm going to do is undelete the article and put it in your userspace, as it really isn't ready for live action yet (among the reasons I've already listed, there is also the fact that it is an article about a living person that doesn't cite any reliable sources); however, it does definitely show some promise. My recommendation is, at this point, that you improve a bit on the wording and expand the article a bit, but also that you take a good look at WP:FIRST, which has a good set of guidelines for how to write an article.
- Let me know if you have any other questions, or feel free to ask at the help desk for a more immediate response. Once the article is ready to go live, feel free to move it back into the article space.Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! You are correct that not enough information was entered under Eric T. Kool. It takes time to research; thus, the information I had entered was incomplete. I also wanted to upload a photograph of him. I didn't have time to enter more information or upload the photograph because the article was deleted. Please be aware that someone else already entered a reference to xDNA in Misplaced Pages, whose sole citation points to an article by the research group headed by Eric T. Kool. There are quite a few more articles, as well.
I have previously attempted to add new information under the topic "Synthetic Biology". The work By E. T. Kool, and work by other researchers such as Steven A. Benner, is absolutely essential to understanding the subject of Synthetic Biology, which is actually a rather large study at this point. One might question how well-known Steven A. Benner is, but he is considered one of the founders of synthetic biology. In case of fear of conflict of interest, I have never spoken to or met Steven Benner either.
I believe I have started a "Talk" discussion under Synthetic Biology, about the difficulties of dealing with these subjects because there is quite a rats' nest of links to closely-correlated subjects. For example, synthetic biology is obviously related to DNA (thus the attempt to start an article about E.T. Kool), RNA, tRNA, codons, genetic code, synthetic amino acids, etc.
Because of the many links due to the many interrelated subjects, there is a problem with citations. There are many scientific articles dealing with correlated subjects, but there do not appear to be many books on the subject matter. I would prefer to use the few books that exist, rather than making an extensive list of individual references at the end of each article. I hope Misplaced Pages editors will find this acceptable; otherwise, if they can suggest reference books to be used, I would be pleased to utilize them if possible.
Thank you for undeleting my article on E. T. Kool. I will take you up on your offer to check over the article when I think it's ready to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow600 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
BRD on SI
Hey Magog, I am not planning to engage in the futile practice of making content changes, but I am wondering how this BRD rule would work in SI. Suppose hypothetically a user decided to a filibuster a change and refused to agree under any circumstance, is the content in question blocked indefinitely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hopefully not; hopefully we can move beyond that stage, just as is done in cases with page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering... does your BRD policy apply to talk page edits? I collapsed a sub-thread started by Tenmei because it is not constructive (as per his standard operating practice). He then reverted and added another chunk of nonconstructive text. I would like to collapse his text again because it is lengthy, distracting, and offers nothing of value, but a wiki-lawyer may come in and advocate a page ban. If you don't care, then I'd go right ahead. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would highly suggest that you don't do that. Please do not close a thread started by Tenmei, because he is, so to speak, your adversary in terms of content - and because you've had run-ins with him in the past. While the BRD doesn't strictly pertain to the talk page, regular rules of conduct and edit warring do (as does the general idea, put forth boldly by myself, that edit warring surrounding the topic is on a shorter leash than other subjects).
- If you think that he has started a topic not worth continuing, I suggest pulling in a neutral administrator (such as myself or User:Feezo, or perhaps User:Qwyrxian - although I'm not sure if Qwyrxian is in fact neutral). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so that's supposed to be inappropriate? Then maybe you should let him know that as well, since he does have a long history of collapsing his opponents posts (as shown in ).
I think I will just sit back let others argue with him. You are welcomed to take a look at the stuff he wrote, if you want to deal with this mess. In case you don't already know, his attitude is the main reason for the recent mediation case to be closed. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Y Done - . As for the attitude, I'm convinced this is a two way street (I don't particularly feel like breaking out diffs or discussing it in depth here). As for the removal of content, looking into it further shows it was indeed a bad idea. If, on the other hand, you want to ask him to remove some of the content for brevity and readability, that would be the only reason I can see for this being appropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that.
Citing idioms like "Two way street", "both parties are at fault", and "it takes two to start " is not very helpful, because it tends to trivialize the nature of the disputes (i.e. there's often an implicit assumption that all participants of the disputes share approximately equal amount of blame). While we both know that I am definitely not the nicest person in the world, There are some people in this world that are next to impossible to reason with. For example, numerous parties (including admins and mediators) had already made similar or identical appeals regarding his posts. In fact, I've made such a request twice already in that very conversation. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2011
Magog -- no. Please consider whether your responses to Bobthefish2 have only made our problems worse. The unintended consequences only encourage more mischief.
In the unique context created by the edit history of Bobthefish2, any "assumptions" or "benefit of the doubt" are insupportable. His words become like the "straw that broke the camel's back" for Feezo, for Qwyrxian, for me, etc.
Strategic fraud
There is a difference between WP:Don't take the bait and pretending we don't recognize the harm. We have already stretched pretense beyond the limit of its elasticity.
Fraud is a very specific term which encompasses specific factors. A fraud is false, known to be false and proffered for the purpose of deceit -- encouraging action or inaction on the basis of the contrived misinformation. In simple English, Bobthefish2 "lied" about collapsing text, but this verb is an example of loaded language. In plain language, Magog the Ogre was "suckered" about collapsing text, but the ambit of the verb encompasses the dupe. "Fraud" may be better for our purposes because it labels a parsed process.
Please scan examples of collapsed diffs in mediation threads. Each collapsed exchange is explicitly labeled to be consistent with Feezo's intervention model. These collapsed segments were created in a context which explicitly invited Feezo's feedback or action. In each instance, my edit was explained and my decision-making was defended.
Who's kidding who?
| Example A: Collapsed diffs in mediation per Feezo's model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reply to Qwyrxian and STSC -- Aha, an unstated hierarchy + an unstated conflation of issues. QED. --Tenmei (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2011
Can we not agree that, in the process of identifying an unstated hierarchy + an unstated conflation of issues, our work together is constructive? Like the structured parsing exerecise at Google searches above, these are practical wikt:nuts and bolts questions which are part of figuring out how to comply with Feezo's leadership guidance and structured mediation plans. --Tenmei (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2011 |
Who's kidding who?
| Example B: Collapsed diffs in mediation per Feezo's model | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Who's kidding who?
| Example C: Collapsed diffs in mediation per Feezo's model | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Mediation needs to be a self-fulfilling exercise rather than a self-destructive one. --Tenmei (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Returning to the subject at hand: the mediation fails in its function unless a clear line is drawn between what Feezo construes to be "on-topic" or "off-topic." In order to follow Feezo's leadership, we need to know what Feezo means by the phrase "material not directly related to the primary issue under mediation." For the time being, Feezo's mediation plan invites us to comply with what? That is the question from which sarcasm distracts. Mediation needs to be a self-fulfilling exercise -- building from a solid foundation toward a constructive end point. --Tenmei (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2011 |
Developing "zero tolerance" for deliberate fraud requires this very detailed response.
We don't yet know what to do, but even young children understand how to say "no".
- Strategic fraud is toxic.
- Bobthefish2 is a toxic long-term warrior.
An important step in addressing our problems is simply acknowledging them. --Tenmei (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Beer cans
I was thinking that most of the files in this Commons category are probably copyrighted derivative works...wanted a second opinion before I went to the effort of a mass deletion request. Kelly 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah those look non-free to me. Let me know if you need help tagging all the images with the deletion tag; I have use of autowikibrowser on commons, and I use I for that purpose. Or you could just apply for usage yourself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Man, I'm discovering that Commons is lousy with copyrighted product packaging, there are thousands of them, I think. I am AWB-challenged, if I start compiling a list, perhaps you could eventually turn AWB loose on it? Kelly 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I could, yes, but I'll need to know which deletion discussion to link to which file. I can even start a deletion discussion if you want, and because I'm handy with regular expressions, I can actually just paste the list of files into a deletion discussion if you want. You might want to put something in your userspace then i can move it into the mainspace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll probably just start compiling a list in my userspace...it will probably take a while. I wanted to finish moving Coolcaesar's images over to Commons first (almost done). It's likely to be contentious - I've tagged a few of these images on Misplaced Pages and Commons both and people are already getting emotional about it rather than writing fair use rationales. I'll never find all the copyrighted images at one whack but I guess we can deal with them in batches. Kelly 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, they can get pretty snippy at commons; it's a very toxic atmosphere at times. I think it might partially be due to cultural differences in communication and norms. But I've gotten a bit sick of it myself. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly
|
Thank you for your support |
| Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
1bc3d.png -> 1bc36.png on Duployan shorthand_1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand-2011-07-28T11:12:00.000Z">
There are several pairs of pictures that are currently identical on this page, including the two that your bot attempted to conflate, but they actually represent different entities (Unicode characters). It is distinctly possible that at a later date, these images will be updated to indicate distinguishing characteristics, so they need to be retained as distinct files and distinct names. Is there any way to block or warn bots like yours that the current status is not accidental? VIWS 11:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)_1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand"> _1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand">
- That was more of a human factor than it was a bot factor. Originally, User:Sreejithk2000 tagged the page for WP:CSD#F8, and I specifically marked it approved for deletion. As such, if you don't want the file to actually be deleted, you might want to upload it to Commons and put a note on the talk page that you don't want it to be deleted, even if it's identical, while explaining the reason why. If the reason is valid, Commons will handle it properly. However, your reasoning saying that it was the wrong stroke direction is wrong - I'm looking at the deleted revision right now, and they are exactly identical in appearance - as such, it looks like the problem was uploader error to begin with. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I am the uploader, and it's not an error. Like I said, they represent two completely different script entities that are distinguished only by the direction they are written, (they connect to adjacent letters, revealing their direction) and they need to be two separate files so that when someone uploads new versions that actually show the subtle difference - say, an arrow to show the direction of the stroke - you don't have the new image showing in the wrong place. I need to know how to keep people like you who don't know the back-story that even though the images are currently identical, they absolutely should not be substituted for each other. How can I port images over to commons and mark them so they won't be removed like this? I tried before, and gave up because I couldn't navigate the commons process. VIWS 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)_1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand"> _1bc36.png_on_Duployan_shorthand">
- I just did it for you, as that was easier: see commons:File:1bc3d.png, commons:File talk:1bc3d.png, and commons:File talk:1bc36.png. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback - User talk:Brendandh
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Brega to Gaddafi
I belive Brega shouldn't be blue anymore but green, since it has been confirmed by the rebels themselves that they had been holding positions 20 kilometers from the town since the battle ended a week ago , were only on the eastern and southern aproach to the town, the west is still an open supply route for the loyalists (so in fact the town is not surrounded), there are over 1,000 loyalists in the town (and not 300 as the rebels claimed initialy), the top rebel commander commanding the front there has been killed, and following his death the rebels have retreated today an additional 10 kilometers from the town . So in essence they are 30 kilometers from the town now, only 10 kilometers closer than they were before the battle. All the information has come directly from rebel commanders on the frontline. EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which page are you maintaining is incorrect? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The main map of the civil war which shows all of the towns under loyalist or rebel control. EkoGraf (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will work on it later if it's still not changed. Real life calls me at the moment. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Libyan Uprising.svg
Hi, you recently altered the above image to show that Brega and Zliten are under Gaddafi's control, yet I did a Google search (under the "news" section) and couldn't find any news article to verify this. In Brega, it seems the rebels have control of the city, but are struggling to defuse several landmines that have been planted throughout the city. Would you be able to provide me a link to a news site that published a report on the current situation in Brega? Thanks. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 06:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
...Ironically, it would seem, immediately after I posted this question I noticed the subsection directly above mine. So now it is moot. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. I also left a note on the talk page with a fuller explanation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Confidence trick on Spanish Misplaced Pages.
I realise that what goes on to Misplaced Pages in non-English speaking countries may not be your responsibility but I felt I should draw your attention to a completely fraudulent "biography" of a non-existent person, evidently designed for some mysterious reason to fool readers somehow.
The link here at es:María Melchora de Braganza may no doubt be imitated elsehwre and provide "authority" for the existence of this non-person.
She is described as the youngest (4th child) of King Carlos I of Portugal, assassinated in 1908, but there is absolutely no record of any such person in any published source./ the supposed biographic support cited in support of this person's existence, along with her pretended titles, is entirely fictitious. Reference to the contemporary published sources of royal genealogies (such as the Almanach de Gotha) as well as online sources demonstrates that no such daughter of the last king ever existed.
This is the kind of entry that makes wikipedia's editors look inept and serves to put in question the reliability of much else written on the worldwide wikipedia.
For online sources you could look at this excellent site: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/portugal.html or here: http://www.geocities.com/henrivanoene/genportugal.html or indeed the English language wikipedia at Carlos I of Portugal
GuyStairSainty (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yikes! Thanks for bringing that up. This is what I've done: I'm not at all familiar with Spanish Misplaced Pages, but I've left a message at es:Misplaced Pages:Informes de error#María Melchora de Braganza (2) (along with a minor rant about how I was treated last time I did any substantial editing there). However, it's pretty backlogged so I'm going to place a note at their administrator noticeboard (es:WP:TABM#Informes de error). Magog the Ogre (talk)
- And it's been deleted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)