Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 24 November 2014

This is NativeForeigner's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Note: Archives are below in template as well. New archives will appear in header.

Header ripped off from Anonymous Dissident (Thanks)

Please, be my guest, and whack me with a large trout if the situation demands it.

This user replies where he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

${\displaystyle \lnot \mathrm {TB} }$ Please refrain from using the dreaded Template:Talkback on this page multiple times in the same discussion (I'll have it watched after the first template)

Vote!

Formerly Redskunk (talk · contribs)

Archives

Index January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007-Early December 2009 Rest of December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July-December 2010 Year of 2011 Jan-July 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Username issue

It was probably not your intention, so you might want to redact the name you used here . Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops. The problem with such erm, changes. I'm not sure how aggressively I should try to redact it per policy, but I've certainly changed it. NativeForeigner 08:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think he has been saying he has serious personal security reasons for not wanting it used publicly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Re my email at ArbCom

I sent ArbCom an email re my I-ban as it relates to the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Please respond. Ignocrates (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it went to spam. I'll get back to you in the next 3-4 hours. NativeForeigner 01:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And sorry for the delay. Nonetheless I posted to workshop talk. @Ignocrates: NativeForeigner 09:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I see it. Thanks for doing that. Ignocrates (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Request

Would you be willing to look at this SPI? Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I just took a gander. I'll talk it over, although becuase Courcelles has already ran a check I'm not sure what utility a further check would truly have. NativeForeigner 04:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello NativeForeigner. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Misplaced Pages to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"doesn't hurt"

"It doesn't hurt to have it on record." Yes it does. Bishonen | talk 13:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

I'm aware of the IAC circumstances. I see your point, but if I recall correctly it was certainly a point of contention for a while. I'll take another look at the timeline, but given the substantial argument that emerged as a result of it, I think the documentation is useful and not overly harsh. Although that does assume people won't take it way out of context, which is probably quite untrue. NativeForeigner 17:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's untrue, the latest IAC sock is already on it. "Stalkers and Arbcom sanctioned abusers of women like you". Bishonen | talk 23:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

Noted. There *may* be a motion incoming to deal with this junk. NativeForeigner 07:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to repeat what I've already said, but there is no doubt that IAC have latched onto it and it is not limited to that single sock. I guess I made my bed there but, really, they are picking up anything and everything relating to me that they think they can turn into a negative. Supposedly, this is all going to appear in a report in The Times of India at some point. A journalist from that paper has contacted me for a right-to-reply but I am extremely constrained in what I can say due to issues connected with WMF/WMIN. Nightmare! - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Clearly very troublesome. I'll do what I can. NativeForeigner 10:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The likely most relevant diffs are 14 Nov and 15 Nov. Various people, including Bish, RegentsPark and Rich Farmbrough have expressed their opinion that the proposal serves no purpose. - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and some of the details that I referred to in the latter diff have indeed been leaked from within WMF. You'd need to speak with them if you want confirmation but I can email you a relevant contact point. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Corbett remedy

How about this? (1) Topic ban from Gender Gap Task Force pages. (2) Explicit authorization of non-appealable 48 hour blocks by any administrator for future instances of incivility. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Something like has been brought up. I think davies is more workable from a consensus gaining point of view, as there is a feeling that the 48 hour blocks would repeat ad nauseum. I'm not convinced but, eh. has been proposed, and hopefully will gain traction. NativeForeigner 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it ensured that other admin wont undo the blocks pre-mature? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)