Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:58, 7 May 2014

WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

test

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This seems a reasonable outcome.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC))

Please clarify Civility Policy?

Hi Littleolive oil - Could you please help clarify WP:NICE in this AN/I discussion? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry the discussion is closed. I also have no idea what this discussion is about and know nothing of its background so I would be better left out of the discussion, anyway. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

BLPTALK

I agree with your concerns. BLPTALK's "not related to making content choices" is easily overlooked and imo needs some further explanation within the policy itself.

As far as the Chopra talk page goes, I think editors are frustrated. I certainly am. SAS81 has a job to do, and it directly violates our policies. The only good we're getting from all this is that more eyes are looking closer at the article.

You're excellent with people - not my forte at all despite all the work I've put into it. Yes, you've identified a comment that only escalates the situation. It's at minimum a civility problem. I'd certainly like to see the frustration and resultant snippiness gone. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that SAS81has violated any policies. I'm wondering where you see policy violations. I do think he or she has done an excellent job for a new editor of maintaing calm and reason and of trying to understand both the WP policies and its culture and to work within those constraints He faces self-proclaimed skeptics alone, after all. Editors do have a right to disagree and I think he has some legitimate points worth discussing. I expect there's frustration all the way around.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC))

Add: I don't know that I'm better or worse than most editors in dealing with people but thank you, and you seem to be doing fine yourself from what I've read so far.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC))

So we're moving on from the BLP concerns? That's all I really wanted to address. Thanks then.

"I don't see that SAS81has violated any policies." SAS81's job is to violate the policies - to whitewash and promote Chopra. So far, SAS81 has just pushed to see in what manner s/he can. I don't see it as following the letter of WP:COI very well, certainly not the spirit.

As I look over the latest from SAS81 , I see plenty of food for a ban. Will this have to go to Arbcom, or will the community lose patience before the need? --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, "So we're moving on from the BLP concerns? That's all I really wanted to address. " I understood that you are saying there is a BLP/incivility problem on the talk page. I agree.

You also discussed SAS81 violation of policy. I addressed that by saying I didn't see violations. He has said multiple times that he is trying to be neutral, that he and Chopra both understand neutrality is key, and he's asked for discussion on what that neutrality is. Unless an editor already had a POV and stands by that view as the "truth " of the article, these are legitimate questions, are they not? He's a new editor, he's never edited into the article, but is asking for discussion. I understand that is how one deals with a declared COI?

And the "latest" from SAS81. How is that sanctionable. Jps is asking for specific, perhaps personal information, SAS81 responds that AMA has sufficient information. Sanctionable?

I'm very aware that SAS81 is being set up for a ban. I have no comment on that. Best wishes(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't think there are any BLP violations, only civility and behavioral problems. I don't think there are sanctionable problems yet. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP...help here?

Hello Olive, i just posted to the BLP noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra_representative._Biographical_bias.2C_overtly_critical.2C_UNDUE_BLP_concerns

Not sure if this is what you meant by offering help but I hope to have some productive discussion there. SAS81 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

and TRPOD just put me on one of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra

...help?...<meep>

SAS81 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!

Your son has excellent taste since I am a person who spends every summer I can, by the ocean, looking for whales. I can't imagine seeing a Narwhale and how amazing that would be. Thank you for the Narwhale on my talk page.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC))

Just disregard my comment

I'm having a hard time understanding your comments regarding sources. I've struck out my attempt to respond, as it only took the discussion further off my point. I shouldn't have responded at all. Sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't clear. I've tried to explain further and will also push off.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC))

BLPTALK once again

Once again, you are pointing out what you see as a BLP violation on an article talk page, going so far this time as to bring up the possible need for administrator involvement.

Granted, the discussion is straying rather far from being "related to making content choices", but it is a discussion of verified information in a source being discussed. That's no BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific. If you are referring to the comment that Chopra practiced "real" medicine in California as a "real" MD with out a license; that is not in the source I saw and which was being cited. Further, do you really think the constant, multiple aspersions cast on Chopra through out this discussion are all sourced and fall in line with best practices for a BLP at least in the spirit of the policy . Finally, I intended to ask an admin for advice as I said in my last post and said I was happy to be wrong but felt I wanted to ask. Because the discussion was hatted I decided to let the issue drop, although another editor emailed me a list of admins they felt would be fair and neutral. Actually I find it sad that editors on that talk page are defending the language used to describe another human being, and that Misplaced Pages editors are behaving as they are in regards to this article and this person. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

I'm saying that none are BLP violations, since such comments are allowed per BLPTALK as part of discussions "related to making content choices". --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying you're wrong. BLP applies to talk pages, unless sourced, and unless being discussed as content for articles such comments do not belong on a BLP talk page and should be removed, and using a source as a means of hiding/ casting aspersions is pretty transparent, too. That said why is it OK anyway, to clutter a page with that kind of talk. It harms all of us on some level, and it does not honour the spirit of BLP or Misplaced Pages. I find it sad and senseless. I am very busy in real life so will push off. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC))

BLPTALK is clear, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Hence my repeated quote of the relevant part of this policy.

Are you saying these discussions are an inappropriate use of the article talk pages in general? --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not al at all. I don't say that anywhere or imply it. Your reading of the policy is inclusive, mine is exclusive of comments that are not directly related to discussion on content. That's all she wrote. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

I'm trying to understand your perspective not just because of how it has impacted the article talk page, but because I think the policy needs clarifying.

I don't see how an exclusive interpretation of the policy is helpful in any way. It's simply unenforceable given it would disrupt talk page discussions and consensus building. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, libel is libel, whether it is on a talk page or in an article. I've not looked at the article in question, but saying someone practiced medicine without a license is an EXTREMELY serious charge, definitely something that needs the closest form of BLP scrutiny, and that includes talk pages. Montanabw 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

AE Notification

There is an AE request that may concern you. Thanks, The Cap'n (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)