Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:59, 25 January 2015

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Page move

Hi HJ. Need some help with a page move. Can Supergirl (2015 TV series) please be moved to Supergirl (TV series)? It will be the primary topic for the subject. I have moved the former page at that location to a more specific disambiguation that would suit it better. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Got it taken care of. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That matter I asked you about

As my question was automatically archived without a full response, I wonder if you've looked into that matter. It would be most appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it might have been redundant to the more recent thread, and of necessity I have this page archived rapidly (36 hours I think the timer's set to at the minute). I'll look into it over the weekend, I promise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

I created this article and was tagged for speedy deletion because there was another article of the same name which was deleted because of lacking sources or other issues before I joined wikipedia but my article has reliable sources. Can you check the matter. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 10:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the original article was deleted as a result of consensus at AfD, so any recreation of it is eligible for speedy under criterion G4. You'll need to talk to Spinningspark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and get their permission or failing that get consensus at WP:DRV to recreate it. Havign a sourced draft in your userspace will help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Owais Khursheed: In my opinion, the page was not eligible for G4 as it was not "substantially identical" to the page deleted at AFD. Of course, AFD may well have deleted it again regardless if it had been allowed to stand. However, the point is now moot as the article has now been restored as a userspace draft. I suggest that the way forward is to either open a discussion at the main page on merging content, or else put it through the Articles for creation process to get it reviewed as a standalone article. I would not recommend unilaterally restoring it to mainspace without discussion as this will only invite another deletion. SpinningSpark 16:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ie; what RHaworth told me. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Perchance, do you know how to solve this?

Hi @HJ Mitchell, as you can see here, is there any other easier solution to solve this problem? Thanks. --115ash 12:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@115ash: It sounds like you need to change your preferences and untick the box labelled "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein

You know, I don't think blocking Mark for a month was a very good idea, especially on the basis of a comment about the arbitration proceedings on Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo has some authority regarding ArbCom, functionally ceremonial as it may be, and some authority regarding their decisions. Mark was clearly discussing the ArbCom case at Jimbo's page so I don't think his comments there should be considered a violation of his topic ban. I would also point out that it just kind of looks bad under the circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Arbs no longer give too much credence to the notion that Jimmy's the master of his own domain, remember? Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Tarc (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That does not really change that commenting about the arbitration case on Jimbo's talk page should fall within the bounds of his topic ban's exemption regarding arbitration proceedings.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but I for one welcome our new insect overlords. Tarc (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

sorry

Not ignoring you .. I promise to get you answers to your questions in next day or two. Best — Ched :  ?  07:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Perceived personal attack

Hi, I would like to ask for your advice about what I perceive as a continuous personal attack by Gouncbeatduke.

• GregKaye added a {{cn}} tag to a statement about Israel's declaration of independence in the lead of Israel (that the borders of Israel were not specified) and wikilinked to the UN partition plan that did specify the borders. I provided the missing source that proved that the declaration intentionally did not mention the borders suggested by the partition plan and removed the wikilink that became misleading with this source.
• Gouncbeatduke replaced the statement with another that is not supported by the source and is relevant to the UN partition plan, not to the declaration of independence. Edit summary was "(replace POV-pushing with NPOV version of article cited)" which I see as accusing me of POV pushing without any attempt to explain why this content is better than mine (1). I reverted this edit with "Factually incorrect - UN revision plan suggested borders for "a" state, not "the" state that was declared", GregKaye un-reverted the edit without any comment. According to WP:BRD I would expect them to initiate the discussion on the talk page if their edit does not go smoothly, rather than force their favorite versions.
• Gouncbeatduke created a talk page section named "Edit warring by WarKosign", incorrectly stating that I've twice reverted the article (not reverts, constructive edits), removed all references to the UN partition plan (it remained referenced two sentences above) and "pushing" a certain version (this is actually the stable version that existed before their edits) (2). I responded explaining my edits, Gouncbeatduke dismissed my explanation with "I think we both know you are misrepresenting your edits." (3) and wrote that my version was less NPOV (without giving any reason).
• I renamed the talk page section to more appropriate "Relevance of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to borders of Israel" and continued discussing the content with GregKaye and other editors. The only contribution from Gouncbeatduke was accusing me "regurgitating the anti-Arab narrative" (4) and saying that "current version of the article is a much more NPOV", again without any usable explanation.
• After some more discussion I made (what I consider) a compromise edit and asked the editors to comment on it. Gouncbeatduke reverted the edit commenting "returning to last good version prior to User:WarKosign multiple edit warring reverts" (5), renamed the talk page section back to "Edit Warring by User:WarKosign" (6) and moved a statement up - together with an unrelated quote, effectively removing half of my compromise edit while removing a relevant source and introducing a source misrepresentation.
• I added a tag for Gouncbeatduke source misrepresentation and wrote on the user's talk page asking politely to at least take back the attack in the talk page section name.

Sorry for the wall of text, I needed to explain how I see the events. How should I handle a user that undoes my every edit, ignores any attempt of discussion while simultaneous accuses me of edit warring ? Thanks, “WarKosign” 07:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The heading business was wrong; currently, there's a more neutral heading by GregKaye, and I'll try to keep an eye on it and intervene if Gouncbeatduke changes it back again. But other than that, I don't see any personal attacks. I'm not going to comment on the disagreement between you, but it seems to me that apart from the header, Gouncbeatduke is criticising your edits, not you personally. I'll leave the hard part — advice about what you should do — to Harry Mitchell. Bishonen | talk 12:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC).

Mark Bernstein block

Hi HJ, I have a concern about MarkBernstein's block, both the fact of it and its length. I'm not familiar with the details of Gamergate, so I don't know why he was topic-banned. But it seems to me – as a GG outsider, but as someone familiar with some of the reasons for the gender gap on WP – that he raised important issues in his post on Jimbo's talk page.

If it's true, as he argues, that "Misplaced Pages has been and continues to be used as a weapon against women in computing," it looks bad to block one of the people who are trying to draw attention to it.

Would you consider lifting or shortening the block? A month is a long block for one post that was in the wrong place. Can Mark's topic ban be modified to allow him to post somewhere other than Arb pages, perhaps so long as he doesn't edit GG-related articles or article talk? Pinging Gamaliel who imposed the topic ban. Sarah (SV) 17:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, please read the GG-related archives regarding Mark before working on this further. Mark's behavior was and continues to be beyond the pale. Start here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been talking to both parties privately and separately, but I haven't made any headway yet. Though I believe it was necessary at the time, I have come to believe the topic ban may have outlived its usefulness and may be punitive instead of preventative at this point. I think it would be in the best interests of everyone and the encyclopedia if we could collectively find a way to resolve this issue and perhaps remove the ban and replace it with appropriate restrictions and conditions. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)