Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 13 March 2015

Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk page of that article if it is relevant to all editors.

To Leave a New Message Please click here to start a new Section. Remember to sign your post with four tildes ("~~~~") and use colons (":") for indentation when responding to prior comments. Thanks.

I prefer to maintain the continuity of threads by keeping them in a single location when possible. If you post a message here I will almost certainly reply here. If I've left a message on your user talk I will watch your page for any reply.

Archives

2009 Archive 2010 Archive 2011 Archive 2012 Archive 2013 Archive

Quark (cryptocurrency) listed at Redirects for discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quark (cryptocurrency). Since you had some involvement with the Quark (cryptocurrency) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 19:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC) thanks, I've replied there JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Randy from Boise listed at Redirects for discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Randy from Boise. Since you had some involvement with the Randy from Boise redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg 11:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I've replied there . JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1966 (talk)

Just a note to myself (and whatever few talk page stalkers I may have) regarding the above, after much Sturm und Drang the editor in question disappeared into the ether after he was blocked. Although, to me, it was quite obvious there was some connection between that editor and the article he created and advocated (hint: look at the scan of the photo taken at the castle, for just one of many things), I was willing to help improve the article, and in fact tried to do so. However:

• The article, even as originally written, simply did not assert notability sufficient to meet any of the notability guidelines that might apply,
• No additional references could be found that elevated the notability of the subject.

The sad truth is a lot of time was wasted on this issue that could have been spent improving WP. I firmly believe (AGF is not a suicide pact) that the editor was hoping to "huff and puff" his way into the article being kept, as both the facts (verifiable information) and the rules were against him. Sadly, some other editors got pulled into this drama fest and even seemed to agree (in some cases) that the editor in question was being "bullied". Sigh. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of KLOS C

MedStar Health News Release Tag

Courtesy memo for JoeSperrazza, talk page agreeing with the original News Release tag for the article which also seems appropriate for many of the related entities. --BoboLink81 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

--k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hospital

Hi. I think these are old instructions that now not needed anymore. There were placed in 2010 but I think infobox standardisation had done a lot of progress since then. It is not only Visual Editor that makes instructions via comments obsolete but also the fact that most of the infoboxes use almost the same convention. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

…for your attention at the Admin page, to the question of edit warring, of Leprof_7272. Had more like you taken an interest, there might have been a fair discussion. At the core of it was an article content and policy issue—is it ever permissible to leave unreferenced material in a BLP article, to give other editors a chance to place sources they did not take the time to place, when first working? Esp., is it ever permissible to leave the material in, if it is innocuous (neutral, not a libel concern)? I am not strongly opinionated on this, generally desiring strong referencing everywhere, but being driven to be more patient and open with others that are more lax with WP:Verifiable (because in my broad editing experience, such editors are so numerous here). Hence, I was on an odd side of this argument—arguing patience when I normally would have been arguing my opponent's position. So, this particular article issue could have gone either way for me, had there been a discussion. In this case, I posted lengthy Talk before making any changes, and they were reverted by a Huggle-user, responding to what they thought was vandalism (later apologising for this misperception). But this initial mistake regarding the nature of my edits did not stop the reversion from beginning, and I was clueless about how to respond to it. Clearly, if there were only two editors involved, and I the first to edit, the other the first to revert, it would have ended quickly (and my patient approach would have prevailed). But the other editor rounded up a supporter. With two reverting, there was no way I could prevail, and I should have punted. The bigger issue for me is the way in which editors solicit friends when issues occur, and I have now seen this break two opposite ways: on one earlier occasion I was blocked for fighting another discussion-less reversion, except on that occasion it was completely the other direction. (Then, I was asking for unreferenced material removal.) In this case, you and others caught on to aspects of the matter vis-a-vis fairness, but were too late to stem the tide. Bottom line for me: as a science content matter expert, I have other venues to contribute for my univ public service, and so I will move on. But I wanted you (and Liz, and The Bushranger, et al) to know that this is not a game I am going to continue to play, and so after some significant tidying this month, I will be leaving. This last conflict made clear to me the folly of the current system of edit monitoring, reversion counting, and conflict resolution, and understanding the folly of this overarching battle is good news for me. Being content-focused, and unwilling to build networks, this is a losing system for me to be involved with. Just wanted you to be encouraged in your pattern of questioning, and fair-mindedness, for the sake of others here. Cheers, and best wishes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Personel attack

There is not just edit warring. It's about personel attack! Did you saw his comments talk page of kyrgyz people!? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR. There are very limited exemptions for edit warring. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

For your benefit, I am quoting the section of policy regarding edit-warring exemptions below. None of your edits meet those exemptions. In particular, also refer to WP:NOTVAND. Even if the edits you refer to are considered by you to be personal attacks (and it is not clear that they are - see WP:NPA), they are not WP:VANDALISM per se and are thus not exempt from the restrictions on edit warring. Any more such and you will be blocked - and you still may be.

3RR exemptions

• WP:3RRNO
• WP:NOT3RR

The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page.

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard.

Illegitimate removal of other people's comments is considered vandalism, as noted here. Yag's reversions were not edit warring, considering the IP repeatedly removed his comments. I would further recommend that you remove the warning from his talk page as it appears to be counterproductive. —Dark 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments striken and apology issued . Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk)

RD & K

I'm not sure that the RevDel policy really rules out this use of it in as quite a clear-cut manner as you suggest. After all, there's no doubt about the disruptiveness of his comments, and the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight. That combination would appear to be within a creative interpretation of the policy. Or, perhaps we'll get the Kukioko amendment to it. Best, BMK (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I like that last suggestion! WP:NPA inhibits me from stating my thoughts about that editor - but there's no doubt his edits have negative value these days. - JoeSperrazza

MdeBohun

Thank you for your help and support. I won't be continuing with Wiki, there not enough Joe's and too many of the others out there.MdeBohun (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Good luck to you! JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Also I mentioned you on my main page, if that is not ok with you tell me and I will take it down https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mosfetfaser Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Uncool

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen 00:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014/Candidates/JoeSperrazza

Centuria (unit)

Sorry, but I can't understand these template things you added to the redirect at all. Centuria is basically a Latin form of 100, but this particular usage in Mouton's unit proposal appears to be unique to Mouton (and died with him). I can't honestly see any point in this particular redirect, since just no-one will type it, but arguably a dab page for 'centuria' might have a link into Mouton's page. Have I missed something? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I see you edited that redirect. See WP:CATREDIRECT:

There are, however, maintenance categories specifically for redirects, and most should be in one of those

If the redirect is worth keeping (some of the original authors redirects are not worth keeping, e.g., Cubic statute mile), it is worth categorizing. Based on your comment, above, perhaps you should have nominated this redirect for deletion at WP:RFD instead of merely copyediting it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for notifying me about the ANI. I have responded there. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Done - disambiguated to Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wyalusing, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Towanda Township. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)  Done - disambiguated to Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania] JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

is a good example of fair-mindedness - obviously, since you agreed with me :-) Actually, it really is. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Makkah Conquest Edits

Hi,

I've seen the edit history and you have reverted all my edits on the 'Conquest of Mecca' page. Can you elaborate? Occupation is more of a recent term for disputed territories (mostly). Besides, I visited this page back in 2013 (i saved it on my PC) and at that time, it was 'Conquest' and not 'Occupied'

Thanks

````

I saw no citation to support your change, nor consensus for the change on the talk page. As the article itself is titled Occupation of Mecca, not Conquest of Mecca, to change the lede from Occupied to Conquered is problematic. Please revert your recent change and discuss on the article talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Occupation_of_Mecca#Conquest_seems_to_be_a_value_laden_term. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wished we had more WP editors like YOU, deserving many barn-stars

Joe - This is to truly THANK YOU (see below). To get going after the recent turmoil, I have updated and submitted "neovandalism" project as final for review, assuming it will eventually be deleted, and happy to accept any outcome, and added the note: "This project was discussed heavily both now and 3 years ago. I agree it is a highly controversial topic and may be perceived with high level of sensitivity, and understand that it is high risk for deletion, and I am happy to accept the outcome trusting the judgement by balanced and fair editors such as C.Fred and JoeSperrazza. Thank you for the opportunity.". I am still working on the BO-diabetes project and have already revised it rather extensively and will try to prove its notability and exceptional significance in a few days and will submit. I wished more WP editors were like you, Joe and Fred, and thanks. S.Burntout123 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	A true thank you for supporting ordinary users during challenging times S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Cited sources described as "unsourced"

Hi, Joe. You reverted my edit to Julian calendar. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Do you dispute that the Catholic Church is wrong to claim that if the epact is 25 and the Sunday Letter is C then Easter falls on 25 April? See Computus#Tabular methods where it is clearly stated that on epact 25 the paschal full moon falls on 17 April. Somewhere in that article it will state that Easter falls on the Sunday following the date of the paschal full moon, and if the paschal full moon falls on a Sunday Easter is the Sunday after. So the latest Easter can fall is when the paschal full moon falls on a Sunday. If the paschal full moon is Sunday, 17 April Easter is 24 April. Epact 25 cannot produce a 25 April Easter. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this on the article talk page please. Simply put, your edit included no references or citations. Cute the text you added from a reliable source or don't add it. Period. To repeat, please offer further discussion, if any, to the article talk pages, not here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I used the <ref> </ref> procedure. Please tell me where I am going wrong as I don't want to waste other editors' time 156.61.250.250 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Misplaced Pages:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that my IP appears to be shared thus justifying that template of yours

Title. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The definition of "shared" is not what you might think. In theory, more than one user could use the same IP, so it is considered "shared". Even should you assert to the contrary, barring proof, it is considered "shared". Per WP:BLANKING & WP:DRC, you must not remove these notices. Sorry. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. That template requires reasonable suspicion of the IP being of an institution or other place where it may be shared. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Take it to ]. You seem to be spoiling for a fight, and I am uninterested. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you wouldn't want stuff added or removed from your talkpage without prior notice or reasoning behind it. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)