Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:48, 20 September 2013

Archive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Help with Freddie A. Laker

Hi Jreferee, I'm not sure if you're around at the moment, but if you have a little time to help, I was wondering if you'd mind looking at a request for some updates related to a new BLP article? I saw your name in the list of members at WikiProject Biography, so I'm hoping you'd be interested. I wrote a new article on behalf of the subject, Freddie A. Laker, working for his company, so I have a COI and would prefer not to edit the article (or related ones) directly. I'm instead looking for an editor who can help with a couple of corrections to the text (errors due to the sources not being clear, but that Freddie later clarified). Can you help? The full request is on the article's Talk page, if you'd be able to take a look. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jreferee, thanks for taking a look at this for me! I think the second change isn't quite what I had in mind, Freddie is the founder of Guide so that didn't need changing, but he is the co-founder of the Society of Digital Agencies. Can you correct this in the article? I've also replied on the Talk page about the early life information. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for making that edit! Everything looks great, your help is much appreciated. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Article restore soil N.

Please,nosratallah khakian essay surveys should be returned to earth since the article was hastily removed and the remaining terms is Misplaced Pages. Thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.179.163.183 (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• nosratallah khakian was moved to Nosratallah Khakian (an Iranian poet and academic born in 1967), and Nosratallah Khakian was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nosratallah Khakian. If you located significant coverage of Khakian in reliable sources that are independent of Khakian (See WP:GNG), then you may want to post a request at WP:DRV, requesting that editors be allowed to recreate an article on Nosratallah Khakian. -- Jreferee (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

COI: Matthew Bryden

Hi Jreferee, thanks for your input on the COI Noticeboard – I've replied to your comments there (link goes straight to the section). HOgilvy (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi – apologies for the accidental deletion, thanks for spotting and reverting. HOgilvy (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I STRONGLY suggest re-reading the MR you closed

It is clear to even an uneducated eye that there is consensus to OVERTURN the closure of the move. There are 5 overturn (including nom) vs 2 endorse which is quite clear consensus to overturn. I STRONGLY suggest that you undo your closure and respect consensus otherwise I WILL file an RFC/U into your actions against consensus at ! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Again; PLEASE ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION. It is quite clear that you misread consensus and you should either provide a clear explanation for your actions or self-revert and let someone else close the discussion. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You still have not explained your actions against consensus today. While I do apologise that I may have come across as a bit threatening I still think that such a close against consensus requires a decent explanation which you have not provided yet. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thirty Seconds to Mars Move Review

Hi. Why did you close the move review as an Endorse Close? You said that there's no consensus in the move review, but there are four overcomes, two endorses, and a reopen or relist. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title. I think that you should have closed the move review with an Overturn Close. Read here: "(If Consensus to move to a new title is clear) Move title to new title and close RM" or "Move title back to pre-RM title, reopen and relist RM if appropriate".--Earthh (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my lack of criticism of BDD's explanation can be taken as a weak endorsement. I'd prefer for him to put it in the close-proper, and to not include his last two sentences, and then I'd call it an "Endorse, and certainly within admin discretion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the endorse votes, but I think this MR close is spot on. I see two "endorses", four "overturns", one "reopen and relist", and two more "overturns" pending an explanation which was subsequently given. There's no clear consensus there justifying overruling an admin action. It's time to let this go and move on.--Cúchullain /c 01:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As you are biased due to your endorse vote of course you would be blinded to the clear consensus against endorsing the incorrect move. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh, so then we can accept that you are equally "blinded" and "biased" by your own participation in the discussion and call it even. Let's move on, shall we?--Cúchullain /c 01:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus.--Earthh (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you consider re-opening this move review so I can follow-up to clarify after BDD provided his explanation? And allow someone else to close it? Thanks! --B2C 21:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi B2C. For some reason, post's on my talk page are not showing up in my notifications, so I did not see your post on my talk page until the notification notified me when I logged just now about your post at ANI, which mentioned that you posted on my talk page, which is how I found your post on my talk page. There is no policy/guideline basis for re-opening the move review for the reason you listed. Move review uses seven days as the length of the discussion. That discussion was open 21 August 2013 to 9 September 2013 - around 18 days. Someone else could have closed the discussion after seven days through the eighteenth day. The discussion was listed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which is where I saw it and decided to close it. I've read and posted at the ANI discussion, and do not see a basis to allow someone else to close the move review. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to review your comments in your ANI closure

Hello Jreferee, Thank you for your closure of the discussion at ANI; it had been hanging for quite a while. I urge you to reconsider your comments about me in your closure comments. Once the sentence 'The international border between...' was disputed by another editor, I never made an attempt to add it back, because I immediately realised that it was not supported by reliable sources. When I wrote "my statement is not a fabrication", I was not trying to justify its inclusion in the article, but only trying to say that I did not come up with it myself. I have always been willing to address and accept others' viewpoints, and have always worked towards building consensus. Hence, I strongly and sincerely request you to consider editing out your comment 'The Discoverer personal opinion ... appears to be moving towards possibly getting in a way of editing neutrally'. Sincerely, The Discoverer (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Done. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know why you were so easily swayed by this guy's sweet talk, but your toning down the closing language has emboldened him to resume edit warring (diffs: , , ), using the same old "reasoning" that places controlled by China in the 1950s should be included in the Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (1962). Sigh... -Zanhe (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of rationale for adding category to Khurnak Fort

I would like to clarify my rationale for adding Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War to the article Khurnak Fort. As per four sources, China controlled Khurnak Fort only since 1958. Till then, both countries used to patrol the disputed region; the occupation of various places in the disputed region (by both countries) is what led to the war in 1962. After that, China had had absolute control over the fort. Hence, I feel it satisfies the criteria defined at the category page (China did not have absolute control over in the years before the Sino-Indian War, but has exercised full control over since the war). The category was discussed extensively at Cfd, with other editors supporting the category. In the light of this, do you think my opinion is reasonable (from a neutral POV), or that the body of the article still doesn't support inclusion in the category?The Discoverer (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• First, four sources you added say China has controlled the fort since 1958, unquestionably before the war. Another one that you seem to intentionally omit says China has controlled it since the early 1950s.
• Second, all sources you refer to are non-neutral Indian ones. You continue to draw conclusions exclusively based on biased sources, even when they are clearly contradicted by neutral ones. It's clear that you still don't get WP:NPOV, one of the WP:Five pillars of Misplaced Pages.
• You continue to insist that the Macartney-Macdonald line is the "traditional boundary" based purely on your strong personal belief, which is not supported by any neutral or even Indian sources. I advise you to read this book published by several senior researchers of the US military: "On October 21, 1959, a team of Indian troops crossed the traditional border at Kongka Pass, entering Chinese territory." (p 331) And Kongka Pass is on the Line of Actual Control claimed by China, not on the Macartney-Macdonald line. -Zanhe (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• The category has not been deleted per CfD. The criteria for including a category in an article is at Misplaced Pages:Category#Articles. The article does not support inclusion in the category. There is a disagreement as to whether the category is NPOV in the target article (which is something CfD does not address). Four references are not enough to show that reliable sources commonly and consistently define Khurnak Fort as an area occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War as a defining characteristics of a subject of the article. This discussion should be on the article talk page. If there still is an editing dispute, follow the policy at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Jreferee, I'm afraid that your toning down of the closing language at ANI has encouraged The Discoverer to resume his POV pushing. As you've noticed, he's not a typical disruptive editor, but his conduct is perfectly described in the essay WP:Civil POV pushing. For example, he has kept your edit at Khurnak Fort intact, but reverted my similar edits at Lanak Pass, Galwan River, Sirijap‎, and Spanggur Gap‎, where no neutral sources have defined them as areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War. In fact, in the first two articles, sources strongly suggest the opposite. He has clearly ignored your advice to follow Misplaced Pages:Category#Articles, which says "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view" and "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial." I've already spent two weeks dealing with his non-neutral edits, and I'd really hate to waste more time on this issue. -Zanhe (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Kindly see User_talk:Zanhe#Disputed_areas_between_India_and_China

My request to Zanhe from the beginning was simple: I would like to hear the opinions of 2 or 3 other editors; surely, this is a reasonable request. Jreferee is the first editor other than Zanhe and myself to have commented on this topic of reliability and neutrality of sources.The Discoverer (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You actually need two or three editors to tell you that Indian publications are not neutral sources in a territorial dispute involving India? Well, at least another editor has acted: Wangernest, the creator of Galwan River, has undone your revert of my edit at that article. -Zanhe (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already given my reasons regarding the sources. Regarding Wangernest's edit, a revert by an editor without as much as an edit summary doesn't count as discussion for me.The Discoverer (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for closing discussions formerly listed at the Requests for closure subpage of the Administrators' noticeboard. Keep up the good work. Armbrust 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

MtG merges update

I've got all the pre-8th edition blocks ready to go in my userspace. When I've finished the post-8th edition blocks, I will complete the merges in relatively quick succession. Look for that to happen sometime later this week pbp 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)