Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:37, 9 September 2016

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as User talk:The Wordsmith/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

WIKIPEDIA FOREVER

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 /Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 9 months and 28 days.

Status: Busy.

DYK for Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline

On 22 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although Montesquieu had only intended to write a few pages about the decline of the Roman Empire, he eventually produced 277 pages in 23 chapters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I'm not sure if you remember but you were the admin who ruled to keep the alt-right article. There is an editor on the alt-right article who insists on having an in-article description of a media outlet when it is already wikilinked, so I was wondering if you could give an opinion on this or if there's a manual of style with this type of thing?

The dispute is about having:
"Benjamin Welton, writing for the neoconservative opinion magazine The Weekly Standard..."
instead of just:
"Benjamin Welton, writing for The Weekly Standard..."

It seems to me that the wikilink exists to provide that type of information where it's relevant, but there's an editor consensus supporting the inclusion of the description as The Weekly Standard is supposedly an unknown outlet and needs to be described. Sorry if this is irrelevant here but I thought I'd ask. Zaostao (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I do remember that AFD,and have followed that discussion. While I agree with you that describing the outlet is unnecessary and likely an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of it as a source, an administrator cannot override editor consensus outside of a few very specific exceptions. Further, I do participate in content discussions in this topic area, so even if I were inclined to do so I'm recused from acting as an administrator on that article due to WP:INVOLVED. The Wordsmith 16:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Do you know of any alternate courses? I was recommended to start a RfC in another case where editor consensus (made up of the same few editors) went against me over something similar to this but doing that seems like it would set a precedent of having to create a RfC every time there's a disagreement between me and this band of editors, so I opted against it. Zaostao (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

An RFC is always a good choice; if published in the right places it can get a wide variety of editor input. For smaller-scale solutions, WP:3O or informal mediation might be better The Wordsmith 16:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the response and the advice. Have a good weekend. Zaostao (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding options to an RFC

Hi! Anybody can add options to an RFC, yeah? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFC suggests that it is proper and even encouraged to "add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template", so I don't see any reason it wouldn't be allowed as long as it is free from disruption, POINT and the usual pitfalls. The Wordsmith 21:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Please note that I specifically said that additional proposals are welcome if they are not WP:POINTy. The Wordsmith 22:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the RFC was "The current lede to the Gamergate controversy article is frequently criticised as being rambling and overly long. I therefore propose that we replace it with the following in the interest of clarity." - it makes no mention of a second option and was not intended as multiple choice. The proposed lede was in a seperate section in order not to make the RFC question overlong - NOT to allow other editors to mess around with it however they like. I am disappointed that you have opened the way to this behaviour. Artw (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You own neither the article, the talk page, nor the RfC. If you are disappointed by others contributing, I imagine you experience a lot of disappointment on this website. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A cynic might see this section as an intentional effort to grow a list of diffs showing "escalating personal conflict" with The Wordsmith, rendering his administration of GG WP:INVOLVED. Violating WP:GAME and WP:NOTHERE in a topic covered by DS would be a risky move! Lucky there are no cynics here. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith has far more to worry about from scientologists than from nerds like me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to get more silly with each passing comment. Can we put this one to bed? I think we all have more productive things to do (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't giggle a tiny bit when I saw your "proposal". The Wordsmith 02:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

GG topic ban scope

I'd like to be clear in my understanding to avoid similar mistakes. Scope is limited to content that addresses Gamergate, the people involved or gender-related controversies rather than articles that address Gamergate, the people involved or gender-related controversies - is that how you're interpreting it? If so: noted. And solely for the purposes of understanding, would this meet your definition of a GG topic ban violation? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Its a very fine line. Articles that are related to Gamergate or gender controversies do count, but I see "related" as more than just a casual namedrop. That sentence from the Alt-right article really doesn't belong there anyway, it seems very out of place as a passing mention unconnected to anything. To me, it isn't enough to make the entire article off-limits. As to your diff, that's very close to the line. A credible argument could be made that it is a violation, but I wouldn't say that conclusively without input from other editors and uninvolved admins. The Wordsmith 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm clear, thank you. I actually support this extremely narrow interpretation, it seems to minimize disruption. As I understand it, for as long as Gamaliel policed the area he made the argument that a broad interpretation was necessary to minimize disruption. As long as it's consistent I can't object. I'm not qualified to edit the article yet but in preparation: is there any procedural protection from admins who might interpret the scope more broadly, i.e. a reversion to Gamaliel's interpretation? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The basic "protection" from overzealous admins is that this topic area is controversial enough that admins aren't going to act unilaterally in anything but the most obvious of cases. Enough rouge admins have gotten stomped on here that where there's room for debate, we're likely to discuss things at WP:AE before jumping to action. I won't comment specifically on Gamaliel's style, except to say that the participants in this topic area were very different from now and I don't see a return to overzealousness being likely. The Wordsmith 21:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Rouge? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable. "rouge admins", ha, clever.James J. Lambden (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something even subtler, WP:Rouge admins are a deliberate typo probably due to the speed in which they act, they can't be bothered with qwerty keyboards designed specifically to slow down their typing from the Underwood days. Just be thankful that typewriter guy didn't invent the piano and try to reduce the number of notes played. --DHeyward (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hey. Uninvolved editor/admin here. Why would this diff be a GamerGate violation, or even close to one? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• My reading of the edit is that the book is about "an extensive discussion of Sanger’s feminism and its impact", which could arguably fall under the "gender-related dispute or controversy" or people related to it section of the GG topic ban. I'm not saying that it does violate the ban, since I tend to construe things like that less broadly than other admins, but the argument could be made. The Wordsmith 04:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please restore WikiConference North America 2016

Notability is expressly stated as Not a reason for speedy deletion. Nor was speedy deletion requested. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WikiConference North America 2016 and read #5 Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria. There are other sources as well, I just haven't added them yet. --DHeyward (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is another reason, just restore to my user area and I'll work on it. No biggie. --DHeyward (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles about organized events that make no credible claim of significance are eligible for deletion under CSD A7. Additionally, you've been around long enough to realize that an article with literally zero coverage outside of Meta and the ticket sales page can't possibly pass muster. I couldn't see any secondary sourcing when I gave it a check either. If there is something somewhere that makes a credible assertion of importance, let me know and I have no problem restoring it. The Wordsmith 02:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't listed under A7. I have other sources including university calls for contributions and other notable mentions.. Please restore it to my user area as I requested. --DHeyward (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've moved it to User:DHeyward/WikiConference North America 2016 for now, so that you can work on it. As usual, I retain the prerogative to proceed with the deletion process if it will never be fit for inclusion. The Wordsmith 14:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

August 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday Auugust 17, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Featuring special guest presentations on WikiVerse and Bringing Misplaced Pages to the Last Mile. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Misplaced Pages editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent (UN Women!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday August 17 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. Prep for our chapter elections next month in September (and add your candidacy!): Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Elections

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Scientology amendment request

An amendment request in which you were a listed party has been archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Amendment request: Scientology (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alex Deans (2nd nomination)

I just blocked IamNate (talk · contribs · count) as a  Confirmed sock of Markus1463 (talk · contribs · count), the master of a group of accounts that were promoting Alex Deans. IamNate was the last person to vote at the AfD before you closed it. It was a rather lengthy keep vote. If I had noticed it earlier, I would have reverted it. I don't know how much that vote influenced your closure, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I did read that argument and take it into account. I'll have to give it another readthrough to see if anything changes without that input, but I don't think losing that one !vote would push it into delete territory. The Wordsmith 15:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

After giving it a second read, the close was still the right decision. Nothing that I'm going to overturn. The Wordsmith 14:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I was a bit concerned about this as well. Both the keep and delete arguments were interesting (with a numerical majority of deletes). I'm a bit interested to know why is this a "clear" keep (instead of a "delete" or "no consensus"). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

When closing, I checked the sources for myself and saw they were clearly strong enough to meet GNG. The promotional language had been removed, and the multiple awards in multiple years weakens the BLP1E argument. Those 3 reasons were the only significant ones given for deletion, and with the changes made to the article those arguments were significantly weaker. I didn't count the !votes numerically, I went by the strength of the arguments made. The Wordsmith 11:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alt right

You got my changes caught up in the removal of that vandalism (which I was just about to remove myself.) Maybe intentional but I'm leaving this message in case not. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

No, your edit just got caught in the crossfire. I have no objection to restoring it. The Wordsmith 01:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! James J. Lambden (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Right Stuff (blog), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Right Stuff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Right Stuff (blog) 2

Hello! Your submission of The Right Stuff (blog) 2 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. jps (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein

So I just noticed that MarkBernstein violated his topic ban involving GamerGate again back at the end of August with this edit on 8chan. Not sure if you noticed it yet so just a heads up. GamerPro64 00:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Just FYI, people are fine editing articles which merely mention a topic they are banned for, as long as their edit is unrelated to the topic they are banned from. I think this is the case here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the talk page of 8chan, its part of the discretionary sanctions with the GamerGate case. So that's still a violation of his topic ban. GamerPro64 01:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of that edit, thank you. On the surface it does appear to be a clear violation of the part of his ban covering "editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate...". Although the edit itself was not GG-related, the article contains significant discussion of Gamergate both in the lede and a subsection dedicated to it, has the Gamergate navbox at the bottom, and the Talkpage marks it as being subject to Gamergate discretionary sanctions. I don't know how much more blatant it gets. However, since the edit is already nearly two weeks old, there's no harm in me pausing briefly to double check how the tag and content got there and confirm the phrasing of the ban/DS before deciding on some sort of action. The Wordsmith 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)