Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:11, 5 July 2012

Talkback

here Pass a Method talk 08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hidden Wiki

Hello Herostratus. You investigated a bit in this area, and I believe you might be interested in commenting at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Wiki. Best. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Help

Herostratus, will you take a look at the edits I reverted at the Physical attractiveness and Blond articles? I reverted because the references that are used are bad, even very bad (such as softpedia), non-scholarly references. Not to mention, the user removed a scholarly-sourced line in the Physical attractiveness article. But then I was reverted by an administrator, all because I was stalking Pass a Method again. I understand blocking me for being a previously blocked IP proxy/stalker, but I don't understand reverting sound edits. Are all administrators like this after blocking an IP, out to revert anything the IP may have edited, no matter how right the edits may have been? What if I had been reverting outright vandalism? I would go ahead and revert the user again, but that administrator is likely watching those articles and will revert me on principle.

Thanks for saying that you are going to revert any bare url additions made by Pass a Method. He's still making them, though. I've come to accept the fact that he's either lazy or hasn't a clue about how to properly format references. Very likely both, or else he would taken the time to learn how to do it by now if he doesn't know how to. And that "lede" edit summary he so often provides irks me to no end. The least he could do is provide a proper edit summary if he isn't going to provide proper reference formats. Some other articles I am wary of him editing, ones you might want to watch if you aren't already, are Incest, Indecent exposure, Marriage, Sexual intercourse, Virginity, anything to do with children/teens and puberty (you already know that I can't stand him editing child sexual abuse and pedophilia topics) and men and women and their bodies. I would include the Abortion article, but there are enough editors watching it who are more than willing to revert any bad edits he may make on it. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(I'm responding here because I'm not sure that your IP address is static (I recommend getting an account, it's easy free and safe).) Well, I dunno. I can't really follow this user around as that would be stalking. Some of his edits are OK but he is kind of peculiar, generally. As long as he stays away from articles dealing with child sex and sexuality, which he has, he's not really a big concern to me personally. Other than that not really sure what to say or do about him. Herostratus (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, by the "sexuality" part of your comment, you mean only child sexuality? You must, because Pass a Method has still been tampering with other types of sexual topics. Seriously, it's a problem that this user edits any type of sexual topics. I saw that you put two of his articles for deletion. Good call on those.

Oh, and I don't hold it against you that you ignored my concerns about the Physical attractiveness and Blond articles. Another user took care of the first one, and I alerted him/her to the second one. 23.20.58.44 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alexei_Davidov.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Alexei_Davidov.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Juice Leskinen at Rind et al. controversy

This user is way more of a worry than User:Radvo is. At least Radvo recognizes the great harm that often results from child sexual abuse, while Leskinen acts as though harm generally does not result from it. See Talk:Rind et al. controversy#No personal attacks. This user (Leskinen) is a mess. I hope you and others do your best to keep this article and the other child sexual abuse/pedophilia articles from being ran over by that sickening view.

Pass a Method got the article and talk page semi-protected so that I can't edit or comment there. But I bet he was hoping for a permanent lock-down. Instead, it's only temporary. I'm not sure why he thinks he can silence my voice for long or that he can get an article I may edit semi-protected, along with its talk page, simply because I'm the the one editing it or commenting, but he's sorely mistaken. Someone might want to tell User:DeltaQuad that too. 115.124.88.2 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(I'm responding here because I'm not sure that your IP address is static (I recommend getting an account, it's easy free and safe).) I hear you. I'm monitoring the article. We'll work it out eventually I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Leskinen has taken my dare and has now moved on to the Child sexual abuse article, saying that it needs to be checked for being non-neutral. In just what way are we supposed to be neutral on the topic of child sexual abuse? By suggesting throughout the article that child sexual abuse has a healthy chance of not being harmful? Leskinen sounds just like the other suspicious users who have showed up at that article claiming POV issues. One of them was recently blocked. I hope the same happens to Leskinen. On the Rind talk page, he says he'll be leaving soon. I hope he means permanently. I'm calling this user a "he" because they are always "hes." 23.20.58.44 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes OK, but what is your deal? How can you have addresses in those ranges unless you're using a proxy or something??? I'm not inclined to converse with you much in that circumstance, can you not register an account? Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

They/he (it's probably the same guy who has since been banned for an army of sockpuppets) were trying to get you to act as a useful idiot for the insidious pro-paedophilia movement on Misplaced Pages, gaming the system by abusing your good faith, "Juice Leskinen" was banned as a sockpuppet of "Cataconia" and kept/keeps coming back on numerous IPs, see here: Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Cataconia --Mistress Selina Kyle 04:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What "they", Lskinen et all or user 23.20.58.44 et al? Anyway there is no insidious pro-paedophilia movement on Misplaced Pages, is there? I thought all that was in abeyance. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina, I'm highly insulted that you would accuse me of being Juice Leskinen. Why the hell would I rat myself out?! Or debate with myself on the talk page, calling myself a likely pedophile?! If I was Juice, how does that help my cause at all? I have been someone who has been worried about pro-pedophilia pushing on Misplaced Pages, which Herostratus can attest to. And, Herostratus, I'd thought you'd known for some time now that I am always a proxy. It's the only reason I keep getting blocked, aside from stalking Pass a Method's awful edits. 23.20.67.42 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I think that Mistress Selina is confused, or something. OK, 23.20.67.42, right, I figured something like that. I agree with the thrust of what you say, but I don't understand why you need to edit via a proxy. Why not come in from in the cold and get a proper account? As it is, I'm pretty much not too comfortable with engaging with you, since proxy editing is against the rules, and there's no reason why a good-faith editor can't edit withing the rules, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Even good-faith editors edit use proxies, per WP:PROXY and per my contributions. My only offense has been using a proxy and WP:Stalking Pass a Method, although I don't consider following his edits and trying to fix the bad ones to be an offense/WP:Stalking. WP defines it as "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." That's not why I'm following him. Anyway, I don't want my true IP to be shown, and it's not because I'm not trustworthy. As for getting an account, I have heard how Misplaced Pages can become addictive, even an obsession, once you become one of its official members, and I don't want that happening to me. I also like to be able to bounce around as a different IP. Besides, Pass a Method would likely try to get me blocked for WP:Block evasion, even though I'm no vandal, have never had a Misplaced Pages account, and should be able to have on as sort of a WP:Fresh start. 23.20.83.143 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hero, are you going to Wikimania? Was hoping you might be interested in being a panelist on paid editing representing the paid advocacy watch. See the submission here. You may have already seen this on the Paid Advocacy Watch Talk page. King4057 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, are you going to keep some form of the Paid Advocacy Watch alive? As someone who has - and continues to - invest a lot of time learning, implementing and sharing ethical best practices, how to collaborate with other editors, rules and guidelines and so forth, I feel bitter at the prospect of unethical editing being more effective. King4057 (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Substantive change"

Can you please point me to where the addition of the word "online" to WP:NOT was discussed? It was not there originally, it was a later (though admittedly still old) addition that I'm simply undoing because it was used as an excuse to go change the five pillars and a bunch of other stuff recently. --Gmaxwell (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well these are valid points and you may be right. My stance is more or less that it's not worth making the change because it doesn't really improve the sentence, but I could be wrong on that and I've opened the question on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection

Katy Perry is re-releasing her 2010 studio album Teenage Dream. It's called Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. I want to make a article about this studio album. I already have a article I am going to move to Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. It is called User: CPGirlAJ/Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. I tried to move the article but it won't let me do it. Could you figure out how to move this article? Please answer this question at my talk page. CPGirlAJ (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A re-release does not typically require a new article, even with a slightly new title (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)\

You're probably right (although I don't know the specifics of this particular album), and I advised CPGirlAJ that she'd probably be better of editing the relevant section of the existing article, although she's free to make and argue in defense of a separate article if she wants to. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PAIDWATCH

Hi, I made a bunch of edits to WP:PAIDWATCH stuff, I was thinking, when you made it you weren't sure if there was going to be interest it says, but given that people have started joining and recent events like User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel + I think it really seems like it's time for it to go into full throttle maybe?

It's your idea, but if you don't I think I'm going to make one myself lol. It's more likely to get more people joining if it's up as a proper project than looking like it's someone's userpage I think. You should totally be listed as the original idea for it though, that should have been done years ago. It really is about time I think, it looks like the Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. stuff has been going on since around 2006 after I gave up on Misplaced Pages for a while -.-

Mistress Selina Kyle has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle 10:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Barbara Newhall Follet.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barbara Newhall Follet.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.Template:Z134 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be answered

Do you agree with this edit summary by Mistress Selina Kyle? If so, i'm afraid that Wikiproject Cooperation is going to have to break all ties with your group. Silverseren 23:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Being supportive of the Corporate Representatives Group is not a requirement for being open to supporting genuine ethical paid editors that do not seek to lobby to enforce their will n Misplaced Pages to work within the wp:Conflict of Interest rules — or it shouldn't be, if wp:COOP would stay within the original stated aims before some seem to be trying to hijack it into Corporate Representatives Group on Misplaced Pages... You have no authority to threaten people with "breaking off", you cannot "own" wikiprojects and the fact that you seem to be seeking to exclude people who want to encourage Corporate Representatives to work within Misplaced Pages's policies is showing that if anyone should be "broken off" from wp:COOP it is you and bobrayner who have been actively supporting the lobbyists on Facebook and attacking people like me attempting to encourage them to act within the rules like wp:COOP is MEANT to be about. If you were not like this wp:PAIDWATCH would not even need to exist... --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

CREWE is the main group we are working with right now, the one that all the ethical paid editors are joining. I don't know where you got your opinions on them from, but all of the paid editors that have contacted us have been a member of that group. And it has nothing to do with "authority". If Herostratus' group is going to specifically focus on working against paid editors that are trying to ethically edit Misplaced Pages, that goes at direct odds with what Wikiproject Cooperation is meant to be focused on. Furthermore, I haven't excluded anyone, you've just been going around to a number of places and making comments that are attacking CREWE and its members. As for as I can tell, you've been doing this for no discernible reason. Silverseren 23:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, to add, they have been acting within the rules. Completely and utterly. They are more focused on getting other PR people and companies to understand that what Bell Pottinger did is wrong and shouldn't be repeated. Silverseren 23:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what this Paid Watch project would accomplish. Banning or heavily restricting paid editing isn't feasible. It will just drive it underground, which is something nobody wants. From my time working with my fellow reviewers at WikiProject Articles for Creation, I have dealt with more paid editors than I can count. The vast majority of them try very hard to write Misplaced Pages articles that follow our policies and guidelines. It is just a matter of explaining to them why something should be or can't be done.

The current AfC system works magnificently. The user writes an article, and a member of the project reviews the article. It is moved to mainspace if it is acceptable, and "declined" with a reason if it isn't. We have an IRC channel and a newly added help desk to answer queries. Often times reviewers are also asked questions on their talk pages. AFC has had some very high quality articles come out of the process. While I agree that some paid editing can be harmful, if the PR organization is genuinely willing to follow policy (and most are), it does not cause any harm. For mainspace, we have COI edit requests, and for new content we have Articles for Creation. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Silverseren to answer your question, I wouldn't have made that edit and wouldn't state things that way, no. On the other hand, the phrase "Widely regarded as a pressure/PR group" is, I guess, wrong only being somewhat weasel-worded; "Is a pressure/PR group" would be better. I'm not sure if "PR" is actually accurate or necessary, but since they are PR people I don't see as they or anyone would much object to being characterized as a "PR group", so I suppose that you're objecting to "pressure group". But they are. Right? I mean, I hope that CREWE is a pressure group because if they're not, what on earth is the rationale for their existence? To play golf? To operate soup kitchens for the homeless? What on earth could they be except a pressure group???

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a pressure group, of course. It's simply a description. I have belonged to various pressure groups (Greenpeace, ACLU, etc.) and feel that that's fine. It's a question of to what end the pressure is being applied. If it's an end that feels is laudable, one will presumably support the pressure group; if not, then not, that's all. Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's what CREWE is about (from their FAQ): "Initially a group of PR professionals and marketers who wanted to get together to change the existing status quo with Misplaced Pages over editing with a conflict of interest... Once a few Wikipedians joined the group, the forum has evolved to one of education about how to ethically edit when you have a conflict of interest, and continue the discussion about improving usability on Misplaced Pages for editors with COI." By "usability", CREWE means improving the editing interface so that novice editors can more easily access policies regarding MoS, COI, RS, V, NOT, etc. Rklawton (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, that sounds fine. You'll excuse me I hope if I don't necessarily take their (or any entity's) self-description at face value. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but on the other hand my Sham-WOW bill is quite low. But to the extent that CREWE has come around to abandoning toxic advocacy and come around to being Misplaced Pages-firsters, this is great news! One thing I was thinking about is this: it seems to me that a lot of our articles on corporations are really lax in outlining their larger impact on society, specifically in insufficient attention to corporate malfeasance. I think it'd be outstanding if CREWE members who have insight into particular corporations -- perhaps as their clients, for instance -- would be willing to help out by expanding our material on corporate malfeasance for those articles. This'd go a long way to proving their bona-fides as Wikipedians first and foremost, so this looks like a win-win. Any ideas on how we can get the ball rolling on this? Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Paid advocates

I have recently been working on a creating a similar project looking at paid political operatives. I'm sure you would agree there is a correlary....payment. Hidden or not hidden it effects the result. It effects Misplaced Pages. For the time being I will keep my edits and opinions to a minimum. I don't want to bring my baggage here and diminish your effort. What I hope I can do is to keep threads "on topic'. While there may be a miracle answer at the end of a drift away from the opening of a thread, that is a rare occasion. I'll start reading and catch up. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

With your permission, I would like to include the following entry from 'paid advocates' and include it at WP:Paid Operatives#Conversations elsewhere on WP. Right now I am just a gatherer, a harvester. I hope to emulate the work you have done at User talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch. The level of conversation far, far (not a typo) surpasses anything at Paid Operatives. Great work! I would not include your sig since I feel that "colors' the RL response. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it's a complicated issue. My opinion is that overall paid advocacy editing is a net negative, for a lot of reasons. One of them is the effect on our reputation. Another is the effect on morale. A third is corruption of our processes. But mainly, no, I don't believe that entities "merely want a neutral Misplaced Pages article". Because, you know, one man's neutral is another man's whitewashing, and putting money on the table just makes this impossible to fairly determine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buster7 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up. Someone is notifying about your list.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm your new clerk. :) →StaniStani  05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, well, sorry I've gotten a little behind, but to address the above:

• @User: Buster7: Well, thank you for you kind words. Yes of course you have my persmission to re-post anything I write -- it's part of the release agreement anyway, but it's kind (but not necessary in future!) to ask for permission.
• @[[User:Berean Hunter, OK, thanks for the heads-up. I'm pretty sure all those users already know about (and don't object to) their listing.
• @User:Stanistani Well, great! Welcome, and thanks for your help! Herostratus (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject: Privacy & Personal Attack Protection

Hi Herostratus, I wonder if you are interested in joining the Privacy & Personal Attack Protection WikiProject? PaoloNapolitano 19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi PaoloNapolitano. Sorry, I've gotten shamefully behind on my correspondence recently. It sounds interesting, but you've deleted it, so I didn't get a chance to look at it. I'm sorry if this was due to lack of response, especially to the extent that my own slowness in responding contributed to that. I'd be glsd to discuss this with you in more detail. Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent and its spin-off articles

Shouldn't all of these articles be semi-protected, not just Ages of consent in North America, or do you guys have them all under control? 221.194.177.162 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Is there a specific problem? I don't have them under control -- I'm supposed to be basically retired from that field, and while I have a couple of articles (Age of consent reform for instance) presently on my watchlist, I reserve the right to remove them at any time. If you want permanent semi-protection for any articles, I guess Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection is the place to go. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PAW

I like that....PAW...so does my French Bulldog, JoeJo. Anyways, you said "...Figuring out how to do that is one of the tasks of this project, I guess. I'm willing to engage with you and other paid editors, but I'm not that interested in arguing with you. I'm not going to persuade you to give up your meal ticket. I'm mainly interested in seeing paid editing ended, and unless and until that is done, watching it and fixing it. It's tedious work but it has to be done, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Don't hesitate to ask for assistance in watching and fixing. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Heads up, Pass a Method in disguise

Herostratus, take note that Pass a Method may start to edit under a different account and that therefore any future conflict you have with a "new editor" over things you have combated against Pass a Method in the past may, in fact, be Pass a Method. See here. If it comes to that point, I'm sure that you already know you will have the right to report him for inappropriate use of WP:Fresh start. 222.45.72.124 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion about an editor and articles they are editing?

Hey, Herostratus. I see that you were reverted by Avalongod at Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling me what you think of the issues expressed at User talk:Avalongod#POV editing regarding media topics? 122.72.0.113 (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Herostratus. I am the other editor in question. 122 disagreed with some edits I have made, which is fine. Actually he disagreed with the edits a different editor had made (with IP address 84 something) and accused me of being this person. I assured him I was not. But he doesn't like some of my edits either, which is still fine. We have argued back and forth a few times and in my last post to him (on his talk page and the social effects of pornography page) I suggested that we both calm down and work together, even where we have different views as to what information is most important, toward consensus and compromise. I do not claim all of my edits are perfect and where disagreement exists, seek to find compromise or consensus with other editors. At this point I am finding 122's continued comments toward me to be harrassing, particularly as they are accusatory and hostile, rather than trying to discuss our differences. In the last few days he has not been involved in editing anything other than complaints about me. I see no further value in replying to him. I don't know why he has become so focused on me, other than our disagreements on a controversial topic. Avalongod (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

See here, my previous talk page or the Social effects of pornography talk page for what was actually said since Avalongod removed the discussion from his talk page. Avalongod comes here to complain that my comments toward him are harrassment. I tried to tell him that expressing concerns about an editor's editing pattern is not harassment. This is what I told him: "You call it 'lashing out people who disagree with ,' when all I did was express a concern about the very clear slant of your edits in every media-effects related article. You are always pushing for a 'Negative effects? What negative effects? There couldn't possibly be any negative effects' angle. Excuse me for being concerned." After I expressed concern about Avalongod's editing, even asking if there is a WP:CIO factor, he started with a somewhat hostile tone. If his initial response hadn't been so fight-mode, then this discussion would have went over a lot easier. One of the things that aggravated me while talking with Avalongod is that he kept avoiding my accusation that he is IP 61. and seemed to even be implying that he is not (for example, pointing out the Adolescence article as the other article I must be referring to regarding his edits). I told him that he may not be IP address 84, but he is the other two I highlighted. His being the other two makes the whole issue with 84 very suspicious. Just look at his style of contributing, the fact that the article is not high-traffic, and what 84 said. I don't care if Avalongod is 84. I care about him not pulling information just because he wants to and slanting or biasing articles. The reason that I responded to Avalongod in the same hostile manner after he suggested we calm down is because he'd had his last bitter say and I wanted mine. I wasn't just going to let him say those things about me and not counter them. What he said in that retort easily outweighed his suggestion that we play nice. 111.8.172.210 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

COI RFC

Hi Hero. In your comment on the RFC: "It's corrupting to our processes for professionals to be involved in governance issues in which they have a financial stake."

Does that mean my comments are not welcome? I didn't mean to offend.

King4057 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you're a special case. I haven't figured you out yet, but for instance IIRC you say turn down clients if they're not benign and so forth. I actually haven't seen any of your editing for clients, remind me, what is some of your work?

And for another thing, hmmmm, well, no, I mean, it's not a blanket prohibition, and besides that, what difference does it make what I think? There're plenty of folks who don't welcome my comments on various subjects, but I make them anyway.

But you know, you're a special case, because you're you, and unusual I think. But hard cases make bad law, so I continue to maintain that as a general rule persons who are here to earn a living should refrain from getting involved in governance decisions, yes.

For instance, I'm not too nuts about , because the nominator is (or desires to become) a professional online "reputation management" person I gather. Did she nominate this page for deletion (a governance initiative, I would say) because she is completely fair-minded and is only thinking of what is best for the Misplaced Pages? Or because it represents a possible obstacle to her optimizing her income from either current or potential clients here?

Well, who knows? There's no way to know, and of course she may not know herself (we humans are good at fooling ourselves regarding our own motivations, sometimes). But it doesn't look good and it doesn't feel right.

Well, all rules are blunt instruments. If I was king of Misplaced Pages, yes, I would likely prohibit people who earn money advocating for clients here from being involved in governance discussions. It might well be that in your case this would silence a useful and good voice. However, we can't really have rules such as "If you're involved in such-and-such and you're a disingenuous slimeball then you can't participate, otherwise you can". There're a lot of laws where actions are forbidden even though some minority set of particular instances of those actions are beneficial to society, because the aggregate of instances are not beneficial. That is life I suppose.

But anyway I have no power or say in this matter, so I wouldn't worry about it. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Claims that my COI influence my perspective on governance would be well-placed, but I also have real-world experiences that give me some unique perspective. For example, after 6+ years as a PR agency pro, I don't have the same faith in ethics or professionalism that an outsider soaking up the PRSA's code of ethics might. I do have faith that they will do what it takes to get results. I also know from experience that it takes some very difficult consulting to extract encyclopedic entries from clients, that for example don't overtly overlook a major controversy. To expect your average "yes maam" PR agency to do the same isn't realistic. Finally, I know from experience that even good-intentioned PR pros will make poor edits. That's why the COI policy exists, because COIs make poor edits. Duh.

I'm investing a lot of time and effort to do the paid editing thing in a model that is sustainable, ethical and in everyone's best interest. I know from experience that this is a difficult thing to do, but it can be done. It's just that no one's been able to do it the right way yet. I would welcome other paid editors that make the same commitment to become a specialist and make a commitment to ethics. I even think there are certain things anyone can do without expertise that there should be more awareness for. However it's offensive to my efforts if covert censorship is more effective than what I'm doing. If the group of people responsible for this kind of editing is given broader direct editing rights, despite being unwilling to develop an expertise. If there is a stronger business case for covert, direct, or crappy editing than there is to invest the resources in doing it the right way.

Anyways, here are some of my latest projects. I would even welcome your constructive criticism. Note that I wrote my own controversy sections and requested review from neutral editors. King4057 (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

MarkMonitor

• Draft
• Talk Page
• Discussion with Danhash

Honeywell Aerospace

• Draft
• Talk page note
• Note to Wikiproject Aviation
• Talk page comments with links to drafts on NextGen and Avionics

I left a comment/suggestion on the misc/delete page. I felt the best way to handle my COI is to comment, but not vote. King4057 (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alicia Gorey

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alicia Gorey. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Hope.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Hope.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.  Ronhjones  22:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Touré's surname in his article

Hi. Since the matter of whether to include Touré's surname has come up again, can you cast your vote here? If you're new to this matter, and not familiar with the arguments for and against doing so, you can read them just above that section, or click here. The discussion is of considerable length, but not too long to get a gist of the primary arguments for and against. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream Nightscream (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Herostratus. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 23:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tokyo Two

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tokyo Two. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Misplaced Pages Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Mentoring

Hello since I'm not good at editing wikipedia could you do mentoring for me?--RJR3333 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Herostratus (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)