Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 20 August 2011

This user is in university. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. Although he may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for him may not be replied to for a while. He will be back on Misplaced Pages when university is over. Note: this user is currently studying for or taking exams and so will be inactive for long periods of time.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

NOTE: This user is not a bot, nor does he own one like Susan Calvin.

If you are concerned about my username ending in "bot," there was a Request for Comments regarding the issue. The result of that discussion was Keep. Due to the consensus and my personal opinion that my username is not disruptive, please do not ask me to voluntarily change my username. Such requests will be ignored.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kwon Hyi-ro

Thanks for adding this one to the defaultsort lists. I came accross it and was able to rescue it. Its now a keeper with no outstanding delete opinions. Nice. :) Schmidt, 02:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome! The guy seemed to belong to several categories based on the content in the article, which is unusual, but there you have it. I'm glad you noticed! I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 02:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Baggage claim

I owe you one. Thanks. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

inre User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines#Comments

Sorry it took a while to get back to you. I have no odds with the thought that newcomers should not have to sit there and take abuse, but I phrased the section as I did in order for a newcomer to understand that some of the things said by editors in deletion discussions may seem insulting to the unschooled when not intended to be. For example, quite recently a newcomer author took great offense to the nomination Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/T. Rafael Cimino by User:Steamroller Assault. It was a decent and well-reasoned nomination that clearly and politely explained his concerns. When the authour asked about it on the nominator's talk page, he explained again and in polite detail. After which explanatiion, the angry newcomer made legal threats and got herself banned. Certainly blatant rudeness by one editor to another is actionable, my own thought is that if someone more experienced bullies a newcomer, there are usually others that will intercede. But if a newcomer takes offense when none is made, and tries to return tit-for-tat, that newcomer will begin to dig themselves a very deep hole. I'd rather they avoided the pitfalls and learn that we can all get alone here (ideally). That said, I would appreciate your continued input. Schmidt, 00:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, great to know it made you laugh. A pic can make all the difference. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Morris's stuff

Hi Jethrobot. My real name is Julie Cochrane (yeah, the author). I've been watching the mess over Janet Morris's Heroes in Hell series with a lot of dismay and thought I'd drop you a line.

Disclosure about me is long, so I've put it below.

Whatever the details on personalities are, I have paper copies of the first printings Heroes in Hell and Rebels in Hell here in front of me. I just looked at the copyright pages of both. Neither anthology cites any story as a reprint, and they would have had to.

Additionally, both of those books were published by Baen. Baen is a major, New York publisher and it's, as they say, not their first rodeo. I read anthologies by Baen all the time. Invariably, if a story is a reprint, it's cited that way.

This is a big, big deal---that the Hell anthology series is all original works with no reprints. It's part of the "branding." Forming a consensus on something, if your consensus goes against the plain facts---well, saying it was consensus doesn't get somebody out of a responsibility to be accurate once an error has been pointed out to them, even if the consensus doesn't like the fact.

As for COIs and puff pieces on the whole page, I've been watching this and I see it a little differently. Sure, a lot of the people doing edits developing the pages have a story in the lawyers volume or will be submitting a story for a future volume. There is no way in hell they're going to get anywhere near the dollars back that they're putting in in time. As for selling more books, they'd be better off going to a convention or two and talking it up on a couple of panels---more fun, less hassles, more sales. Misplaced Pages is just not that useful as a marketing tool (which I see as a good thing).

Here's why WP is getting a lot of edits on the various pages adding stuff. In the notability battle, the criticism was made that a lot of the pages were poor pages---that they were little more than stubs, lacked information, lacked depth. That criticism was taken to heart by people who liked the series and are aware of the WP wars over it. So they're trying to meaningfully address the criticism by digging up the citations and the kinds of information referenced as showing notability and adding it in---they're genuinely trying to improve the meat of the articles.

Nobody I know of is trying to lie. Nobody is trying to post false citations. If some of the award information like nominations and such enters "who cares" territory, it's still because the complaint in the pre-merge battle that stuck and resonated with the folks that liked the series was the complaint that the information on the various books was too scant. They're trying hard to document, to cite, to expand the depth of information on each book---they're trying to follow the rules in addressing substantive criticism.

And, quite frankly, what I'm seeing from a lot of more established WP editors in return is suspicion, assumptions of bad faith, and an attitude that suggests no amount of effort and care in producing sources would do.

The issue of reprints is a real good case in point. Janet Morris's personal interest is that it's a Big Deal to accuse her series of publishing reprints. She doesn't have an interest in what people think of her work, but she does have an interest that factually inaccurate and potentially damaging things like people thinking her stuff is a collection of reprints rather than all-original--that factually inaccurate and damaging information not be in an article about her and her stuff.

I get that it was *originally* an honest mistake---but it can't be passed off as an honest mistake anymore, because people have offered to scan in the copyright pages of the relevant books and thereby flat out prove there were no reprints in them.

Janet can flat prove it---she has the original contracts. At this point, if you were to ask her to scan them in (and I'll note that she only came on WP and got personally involved when the inaccurate information got potentially *damaging*), I suspect she would be more than glad to do so just to put the issue to bed (no reprints, nada, never, ever) once and for all.

We're talking about the difference in level of proof (regarding no reprints) between proof that would stand up in front of a judge (actual signed contracts) versus "proof" that is hearsay.

In general, for an encyclopedia you want secondary and tertiary sources, but when an article makes a factually inaccurate and potentially damaging claim about someone's work, and they can show you a primary source that proves your information is factually inaccurate, you have to change it. It's why news reporters say John *allegedly* murdered Marsha instead of just saying John murdered Marsha.

My actual interest in this mess is literary. My mom was a school librarian. Accuracy means something to me, and it means something to me that books get an even shake. Regarding the allegations that SPAs and COIs are trying to turn the article into a puff piece---hey, if you can find some stinkeroo reviews from when the books first came out, or if some reviewer crucifies Lawyers in Hell or crucifies later books when they come out, then by all means it's fair to include those. If C.J. Cherryh or someone else notable actually made a citable quote critical of the series, by all means add it to the article in some appropriate place--it's relevant.

But that's not what's being done. What's being done is putting the new editors who are trying to work on the page into a no-win situation where they're first criticized (with some validity) because they haven't provided *enough* relevant information to make a meaty article, and then almost vilified when they go back and do their homework and work hard to improve the article with additional information and *try* to follow WPs fairly Byzantine editing rules.

As far as COI and SPA editors, I've gotten to know some of these folks while collaborating (see my disclosure below), and a lot of them are the types to continue on using the editing knowledge they've learned to help improve other, unrelated articles on WP----several of them could become good, long term editors and make a terrific contribution if they don't get totally alienated by being treated like WP is a private club whose mind is made up, don't confuse us with the facts, "outsiders" need not apply.

The reason I'd like to see Wolfowitz recuse himself is because he seems to have gotten caught up in assuming bad faith. I'm not saying there's not plenty of crankiness on both sides. I'm saying it shouldn't be about sides, it should be about improving the article(s) according to the needs identified in prior discussions. A *true* consensus of *truly disinterested* parties formed that said, "Hey, you pro-Morris people, the sections on the individual books really do need more meat." The people who like Morris's stuff are *trying*---and trying damned hard---to act in accord with that *real* consensus.

I'm putting this on you private talk page because I'm trying to limit how much I actually become involved. That's selfish of me, I admit. I have the time to follow the discussions and form an opinion, but I do not have the time (at present) to learn how to properly edit Misplaced Pages articles. Too busy trying to keep a roof over my head and food on the table.

Anyway---it would be nice if the only administrators involved would be ones who were assuming good faith, if they would respect that there was a reasonable call for the articles to be improved with more information and that now a good faith attempt is being made to do just that, and if they would treat these guys as potential good new editors who are learning the ropes and--if not chased right off--might well go on to take up some of the work load.

You said drop you a line, so I did. My email is jrcochrane256@gmail.com if you have any questions about whether I am who I say I am.

Sincerely, Julie Cochrane

Disclosure about me---I'm submitting a story to the next Hell anthology, the story will probably be accepted. Now let me deal with possible COIs: 1) I'm not big on self-promotion, and you can tell that by my *not* having someone create me a Misplaced Pages page even though it would be dead easy to establish notability. I like Misplaced Pages--I use it all the time, I think the editors in general provide a valuable service, go editors, yay. It's just that self-promotion is low on my do list. I think that should reasonably establish that I don't have a self-promotion pro-Morris or pro-HiH motive. If I was self-promoting I'd promote *me*. 2) Any financial interest is minimal. Seriously, although I'll get paid for my story on a royalty basis, that's split umpteen ways and any increased sales from a listing in Misplaced Pages would amount to less than the price of a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I could sell more additional Adventurers in Hell books in less time by any number of other avenues. 3) Currying favor with Janet -- if I thought getting into this brouhaha would make a story more likely to sell to her, I'd avoid it like the plague. I'm not selling a story to her for the money, I'm selling a story to her because she's got a reputation as a skilled and talented editor, she's been doing this a long time, and I figure I can learn some useful things about my craft by paying attention to her edits. I *want* her to rip my work apart and tell me everything that's wrong (and right) with it. This story is taking way more hours in research and writing than it can pay back in dollars, I knew it would before I started, consider it the writer equivalent of doing the quest for the XPs, not the loot. :-) But currying favor with Janet would be counterproductive in a career sense as she's in a well-known feud with my main publisher. It's worth doing a hell story to get the short story on my list of publication credits and as a learning experience. Anyway. With even the tiniest presumption of good faith, that should dispose of conflict of interest issues. If you still have questions about any self-interest in this matter, please feel free to ask me whatever you like. I only have enough of an interest to make me aware that the WP debate is going on.

If I didn't personally think the shared universe was interesting, of course, I wouldn't be writing a story in it. Don't *most* WP editors have at least *something* about a given article that they find interesting enough to spend their time on it? Don't you pick articles you find interesting in some way when you choose what to work on?

Anyway, that's all I can think of right now that's relevant towards disclosure. Sorry it was so long, but I wanted to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewillow991967 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

More Morris

By the way, that "Guarddog" account really is Janet Morris, just like I really am Julie Cochrane. I suppose if necessary I could give you my Skype info and hold my driver's license up to the webcam, but this is getting just plain silly. I know that's Morris because I've met Morris, in person, and she's said, online, that the Guarddog account is her.

So whatever else is going on, yeah, that really is Morris.

Authors eat, sleep, breathe, and put our pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else.

Bluewillow991967 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

affixing the Single-Purpose account tag to my comment

I just wanted to let you know that I feel attacked, bullied and insulted by your action.

A few years ago I set up a Misplaced Pages account under a pseudonym, and proceeded to create a complete Misplaced Pages article. It is a wholly non-controversial biography of a musician I heard once and liked, and the page is a thing of beauty, and still stands, virtually untouched. That is the kind of thing I would like to contribute a lot more of to Misplaced Pages, if I but had the time. I could have very easily made my comment under that account, but I decided against it because I just wrote an article in my personal blog about the deletion situation. Submitting my comment under my long established pseudonymous account would have felt dishonest, so I set up a new account, under my real name. I guess I foolishly assumed having a web footprint spanning a number of different areas of interest would prevent sock puppet allegations.

I'm a Canadian, but I speak to several people in the UK, so the most natural thing in the world to do was consult Misplaced Pages to find out about Mark Duggan. The blaring notice about being flagged for deletion hit me between the eyes. As a writer, of both fiction and non-fiction, I am very well aware of the importance of Misplaced Pages. Any advocacy I may have exhibited in this case is not for Mark Duggan, nor even for "The Death of Mark Duggan" but for the amazing thing called Misplaced Pages, which has the real life potential to become a real world "Encyclopedia Galactica." If it is not destroyed from within by internal politics and bullying.

At this point I don't know if I will contribute further to Misplaced Pages under either account. Having this tag affixed to my comment certainly feels like bullying to me. Life is too short.

Laurel L. Russwurm (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I also supported keeping the article. My reason for placing the tag was not to prevent the article from being kept. Secondly, was there some reason for me to expect you had this background? I think it is unfair of you to have expected me to know that you created another account from a past one, or otherwise. I don't believe it is common practice for regular users to do "background checks" of other users. Third, I think it may have been better to have just made the comments under your original account. Like I said, I think it is unlikely that people would have searched for your blog. Besides, people are entitled to their opinions on world events and, in my opinion, should not judge them on that basis. Finally, there's a reason the single-purpose account tag exists. For some articles, especially ones that are contentious like Mark Duggan's, lots of anonymous users or first-time users will come to comment on the page. In these cases, it is not unusual for these accounts to be sock puppets of others who have participated in the discussion. Regardless of what side they are on, it is better for administrators to know what comments come from single-purpose accounts to look for signs of sockpuppetry in a deletion discussion. We want the deletion discussion to reflect consensus, and not be tainted by the same person making multiple comments under the same account. I am sorry that you feel bullied, but this was intended to be a preventative measure rather than bullying directed at you. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 03:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference between a first serialization and a reprint

The difference is that there's a difference. (This is about the Morris stuff.)

It is as simple as anything to say that the relevant stories were published as first serializations in such and such a periodical on such and such a date. Badabing, badaboom, done. And that's how to put it accurately.

Specific words for specific rights mean specific things in any kind of intellectual property field.

It wouldn't matter if this were Wolfowitz personal blog, but it's not, it's an encyclopedia. So using accurate terminology when talking about intellectual property rights is important.

Contracts in writing are real specific about what rights you're selling to who and under what conditions and for how long.

A "reprint" means specific "first" rights have already been sold to somebody else or the content has been printed already in a specific way.

"First serial" rights---putting it in a magazine---aren't one of the rights that makes later ones "reprints."

I can see why Morris cares about the distinction---it has actual legal meaning that refers to actual rights and actual, real dollars.

What I can't see is why Wolfowitz cares about saying such and such a story was also published as first serial on such and such a date. What, does it not sound negative and he wants it to? That's the only thing I can think of that could spur someone to react so intensely to neutral, specific, factual wording that refers to actual intellectual property rights.

Or is he just so emotionally invested in being "right" that he's got to (whatever pretty terms he uses) call people who are pointing out that he's using the wrong word liars?

Why not just change it to use the correct terminology and move on to something else more substantive?

Bluewillow991967 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor correction

--JayMan63 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Sorry that you felt what I was writing was a tirade. That was not my intent and I accept that my choice of pages might not have been the best for that discussion. I just didn't want to be sucked into the squabble - and squabble is what it appears like to me. If it looks like a duck... I was merely saddened and disappointed that things had reached that level of acrimony. I was trying to speak to both sides. Thank you for your explanation of the quality of your editors/contributors/researchers. I now know to take anything and everything I read in Misplaced Pages with a huge block of salt. I will make sure others understand your limitations, too. I truly am not angry or making threats. I am merely stating a sadder but wiser understanding of the facts as you have presented them to me.JayMan63 (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I am honored to award you this Barnstar for your work in catching my typos and your valued assistance in bringing Misplaced Pages:A Primer for newcomers to life for the community. It is hoped that newcomers will benefit from WP:NewbieGuide for years to come. Schmidt, 05:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A two-fer

		The Special Barnstar
		During disussions on the talk page for Misplaced Pages:A Primer for newcomers you shared some wonderful insights that I was able to incorporate into the essay. I am grateful for your assistance and hope that WP:NewbieGuide will be of benefit to newcomers for years to come. Schmidt, 06:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ron Hextall GAN

Hi, just a note to let you know that I am back from honeymoon, and slowly getting back up to speed on Misplaced Pages. I have replied to your comments at the good article review, and will be working on the article a bit over the next few days. Thanks for your patience! Harrias 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

Whew!

Your message arrived just as I was planning to log off for the evening but I thought I would do a quick speed read of the controversy first. That was impossible to complete in a few minutes, so let me ask, what is the core issue here? I promise to delve into it tomorrow. It has been at least thirty years since I fancied myself any kind of a serious critical analyst of science fiction, so I can't promise that I will have much enlightening to say. But, I will try to contribute some tiny thing toward resolution of the dispute. I will try, but would appreciate some pointers . . . Cullen Let's discuss it 05:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Whew!-- tell me about it. I'm incredibly tired of all this and would like it to end soon.

The basic issue deals with several editors' opposition to the term "reprint" or "originally published" when describing a few stories within a shared-world fiction series Heroes in Hell (specifically, Gilgamesh in the Outback and Newton Sleep. These stories were, according to Hullaballoo Wolfowtiz and his sources, first published in science fiction magazines prior to their publication in the book series with what are called "first serial rights" (which is defined on page 15 here. However, describing them with terms other than "first serial rights," such as the above terms, appears to be denigrating to the original author, as it suggests the original copyright was not the author of Heroes in Hell, Janet Morris. What's more, Morris herself (or a user who claims to be her) as well another author who has published within Heroes in Hell are in this debate.

There is also off-wiki canvassing, incivility, accusations of editors not having enough knowledge of contract and publication rules, and several other issues not relevant to the dispute resolution (although this may change depending on what involved users decide to bring up):

• The notability of individual books and oppositions to a prior merger of all the books to the series page.
• How Misplaced Pages is hard to understand for many involved editors and how they don't have time to understand everything
• How editors are arguing that their unverifiable claims should be taken as fact
• Really bad faith accusations of OrangeMike and Hullaballoo Wolfowtiz as having some kind of COI or being asked to recuse themselves.

There was also an AN/I opened up because of perceived legal threats, but it has died down.

Anyway, let me know if you have other questions. I'm pretty much an expert on this debate at this point. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

I, Jethrobot, thanks again for the super editorial fix and for explanations of how things work on this resolution board. I hope your edit sticks. I would like to be finished with this. Hopefully, when it is over, some of the nice folks who were working on the page to begin with will come back since I cannot do that. Guarddog2 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Animus (journal)

Hi Jethro, Thanks for taking a look at my new article Animus (journal). I've just added an additional reference. Does this meet your notability concern? I should perhaps add that I raised the question of whether there ought to be an article for Animus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Academic Journals before undertaking to create one. Let me know what you think. Best regards, Tillander 07:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Call me surprised to hear that academic journals are the subject of English university courses! I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 07:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So is it ok for the notability tag to be removed? And if so, should I remove it or should you? Sorry, I'm still relatively new at this. Best, Tillander 07:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no problem; I'm glad to you asked. Any editor is allowed to remove those tags, as long as the problem has been sufficiently addressed. I'll let you do the honors. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 07:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AWB

I Jethrobot, I have approved your request for AWB. Please review the Rules of Use, then you can get started! Happy editing! --Philosopher  08:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

Jethrobot, this Wolfowitz is saying I shouldn't have been on this discussion site at all, and of having been on WP before (?) and various other crimes. Should I bail out? Go away? Delete guraddog? (How do I do that?) None of these accusations are true. I wouldn't know how to create a multiple account. I'm having enough trouble with one account. Guarddog2 (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for a mentor

Hey, thanks for requesting a second opinion on your review. Unfortunately I haven't got the time to review GANs as much as I did when I became a mentor, so I'll have to pass (and maybe remove my name from the list of mentors as well). If it helps, User:Epbr123 wrote a checklist I often use when reviewing, especially for prose and style (and MoS, for that matter). Hopefully you find a suitable alternative to my help. _EricLeb (Page | Talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Having been informed that a user self-identifying as Janet Morris was indef-blocked last year, and noting substantial similarities in the editing behavior of that editor and Guarddog2, I've concluded that the current dispute resolution discussions are no longer adequate to address the underlying problems. You may or may not wish to participate; I thank you for your attempts so far to help resolve the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Long Comments

Several of the people were not there from the start, and almost none of them knew me. Since Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was claiming I was a sock puppet I needed to provide solid verifiable proof that I wasn't one. So I did.

As to calling people idiots, I think if you read what I wrote carefully you'll see that I didn't call anyone there an idiot. I did warn them them that certain actions would cause me to call them idiots. This is not the same thing.

I've worked with chemistry for a long time. When working with dangerous substances you do not mess around. Politeness is not an option. You are either right, or you are injured or dead. There is no other choice. Ever hear of the Darwin Awards? I try to help people avoid winning one.

Misplaced Pages in many ways is a bad example. The belief in consensus building is dangerous. On one of the chemistry related articles the consensus was reached that 2H2 + O2 = 2H2. Any chemist, like myself, would react to this with horror. As I stated during the earlier discussion, consensus is not suitable for all situations. Consensus of this sort, in an encyclopedia that people are using for reference, could kill someone. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiablity, not truth". That means we are expected to back our contributions up with reliable sources. So if the chemistry article formula you mention above is incorrect, you should change it to reflect a cited source so that no one will die. A consensus of editors would naturally have to agree on the correct formula if it were cited properly. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and the issue that has come up repeatedly in the discussions is of verifiability of claims. Assertions of "truth," no matter what someone's credentials or identity are, don't hold up on Misplaced Pages unless they are backed up by sources. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why waiting for Consensus is not good policy

Sorry - this is an answer to the above. I decided to split it out because things were getting a right royal mess, and because it appeared that no one was understanding the salient issues. Here they are, with better formatting

If the issue is the dates of manufacture of a particular model of left handed guitar (I'm left handed, and play left handed guitar, so it would be of interest to me) and error in date is not likely to lead to death or injury. When a chemical formula is involved accuracy could lead to deaths. As a chemist I know exactly how easy it is to find bomb making materials. The only reason we don't see more bombs, is that most people don't know a damned thing about chemistry. There is good and bad to this. It's good, as there are less people capable of building bombs. It's bad, in that there are less people capable of building some really useful technology which could be in far more common use, if only we had the people with the training to make it.

This is why I would rather not get specific about the problems I see. It is possible for someone desperate enough to build a primitive bomb from materials that are commonly found on most households. I'd rather not advertise how to do that, because there are crazies who would do it if they knew how.

When I see something on Misplaced Pages that could be dangerous, or that could lead to something dangerous, my policy is to remove/rewrite it in such a way as to hide the fact that I've hidden something dangerous. We really do not want little Billy to make a back yard bomb and blow up his high school on a youthful lark. You might consider this action to be outside of Misplaced Pages's policies. I regard it as plain common sense.

There's also legal issues. Its illegal here for a bartender to serve someone who is inebriated. and who the bartender knows will be driving. If the bartender does so, the bartender is liable for any accidents that the driver causes.

That law has never been tested on Misplaced Pages yet, and I am Not a Lawyer. However I would hate to be a test case which would prove that the law could be applied to Misplaced Pages. If some loony who used Misplaced Pages to build a bomb, you can bet some prosecutor would try to hold the contributing editors be partially responsible. And then run for Federal Office.

I doubt that this would hold up in court, since there is no direct connection between you and the bomb builder, so you would be unable to determine his/her/its mental stability. And there's the issue of not being a Psychiatrist, and Psychiatrists not being all that reliable either. But defending such a lawsuit could be costly, and there would be no assurance that you could get the loosing side to cover your legal costs.

This leaves out the moral issues entirely. As a consecrated priest (yes, I'm one of them too) the moral issues are the most important in my opinion. Do you want someone to use someone you placed in an article to try to emulate the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing? I don't. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

GA

Hi Jethrobot,

Thanks for your note on Ron Hextall. I am happy to look over the review and provide MOS feedback. I will be out of town until Sunday and may not be able to provide much until I return.

Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

FLC List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books)

Hi! A while ago you reviewed List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books) for featured list. I think, I replied to all of your comments/questions/suggestions. If you still have any comments on the list, please leave them on the nomination page. If not, I'd be happy if you could leave a vote ("support" or "oppose") on the nomination page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)