Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:18, 5 September 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Longhair/Archive11. Sections without timestamps are not archived
/Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Looking for Your Opinion

Dear Longhair,

I am writing you because you are the only administrator I have "met" online. There is an article "Waldorf Education" that is in the middle of two groups of people who just keep fighting back & forth. Because of their incessant edits and additions - each pushing their "side" - the article is now huge and incedibly confusing to anyone who wants to just learn about the basic ideas of Waldorf Education.

The page represents every negative stereotype people have of Misplaced Pages and is over 100 kb long (as of yesterday morning)

So yesterday I wrote first and proposed that we do a major edit and then I proposed submitting it for clean-up. Yesterday alone there were 17 edits and five already today.

I just feel that any attempt to edit the article - separating parts into other pages maybe - or reducing the huge number of references and links, will simply result in their reverting it back. Some sites as of yesterday morning had multiple links - even 5 - on the page.

Since I'm not really involved in their battle and really don't want to be, I feel uncomfortable trying to mediate them.

Is this something that you feel the clean-up crew should take on or am I just giving them more work? Do you think we would have a better result if I offered to take on another thing on the clean-up list or is that just for administrators?

Thanks for your opinion,

Wonderactivist 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Lucie (Wonderactivist)

Hi Longhair, I am still very interested in your opinion, but I'm attempting to make the page a Wiki project. Thanks Wonderactivist 16:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments and advice. I hope the Project approach will quell this and if not I will usethe comments that you recommend. 68.97.192.23 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Longhair, I appreciate your moving the page and your willingness to help advise through this project - I hope to build a peaceful consensus and a better Wiki page. Wonderactivist 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Edits

Longhair, you suggested I have made legal threats toward an individual. I'm not sure if I should respond to you here or on my own talk page (fairly new here, sorry) but I don't recall making any legal threats. I have invited TheBee to make good on his own legal threats if he feels he as a basis for them. I find that it is difficult not to respond to unfounded challenges to my integrity and regret that this type of discussion has taken place here at Misplaced Pages. If I might suggest, it is very likely his intention to have me removed from this arena - he has tried this tactic elsewhere with me. In any case, I'm very interested in giving the Waldorf Education page a fair edit so I'll tone it down to a more level-headed roar and try to ignore his comments as much as possible. Thank you for your involvement in the project. --Pete K 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Report

Hey! I was wondering..How can I file a complaint concerning a user who removes sourced information, because he/she wants to make all the pages stubs and eventually be deleted? Lil Flip246 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just thought I'd weigh in here (I'm sure Lil Flip will give her own account but I'm somewhat involved so here's my pov)... User: Wikipediatrix seems to be going overboard with deleting information from America's Next Top Model Contestants, because the material is apparently unsourced. S/he hasn't taken lightly to my suggestion that they are going slightly over-the-top in remove large swathes of information commonly known or taken straight from the tv series. I appreciate WP's standards re verifiability but reckon that adding "facts" or "sources" tags in articles would have been far more appropriate than simply removing the material. The real problem here I think is what information from the TV series needs to be sourced and what doesn't. In my opinion Wikipediatrix has dealt with Lil Flip pretty hard handedly (making accusations of personal attacks which I do not believe are warranted) rather than making constructive suggestions... I've had the same treatment (what annoys me most is him implying I am in cahoots with Lil Flip which is completely false... I simply fell across the problem when an article on my watchlist got targeted, and have my own problems with it, which simply happens to coincide with Lil Flip's efforts to get Wikipediatrix to see sense). Anyway I've tried to be constructive and restore relevant information and correctly sourcing it but I think there is a limit as to how far this should go. I guess I just find it frustrating that, for example, a statement that "a girl was known for her big red afro" was deleted as not being "POV gossip".

• Examples:
  • Cassandra Whitehead - Wikipediatrix's deletions, my attempts at sourcing
  • Brandy Rusher - Wikipediatrix's deletions, my attempts at sourcing.
  • Jenascia Chakos - Wikipediatrix's deletions, my attempts at sourcing

Sorry to be so verbose but this whole situation has stressed me out which really bugs me because it is of no consequence whatsoever! All the articles narrowly missed being deleted and their status still isn't concrete. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And I meant to add... small world! I live in NZ but my brother's girlfriend spent a couple of months in Mildura last year (she was a med student... now graduated). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to User talk:Lil Flip246. S/he has been resistant to suggestion from the beginning and will on only rare occasion answer posts to his/her talk page. Many suggestions have been made about reading WP:Style etc. which all seems to fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately, because of the issues, Lil Flip charges ahead with such energy, that it involves a lot of work for other editors reverting and correcting things, when these editors might prefer to working on their own writing. Agent 86 made the suggestion that Lil Flip enter a voluntary wikimentorship or wikicoaching, which from what I can see s/he has not as yet agreed to. While I too am troubled by heavy handed methods, there is a serious problem here that someone needs to address as most editors lose patience with Lil Flip in time. I hope that someone has an idea here and can get Lil Flip to listen. Doc ♬ talk 13:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Doc ♬ talk 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why User:PageantUpdater is still complaining, because she's finally giving proper references and verifiable sources to articles, something she wasn't doing before, and neither was User:Lil Flip246. Her own "Wikipediatrix's deletions" example links above demonstrate that I was removing unsourced gossip about living persons as well as copyright-violation images (which are scheduled to be purged from Misplaced Pages soon anyway). And I'm not the only one who's tried to set these two editors straight - check their talk pages for advice from admins that they ignored. Lastly, note that User:Lil Flip246 has here for the sixth time repeated her insulting accusation that I'm only cleaning up the articles in order to "make them stubs and be deleted". I actually increased their chances of being kept in the AfD by making them free of copyright violations, false sources, and unsourced gossip that reads like something off a fan blog. wikipediatrix 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the levelheaded message you left on my talk page. I share your sentiments... I fully accept that Lil Flip needs a bit of direction and have never taken the stance that her editing is quite as it should be... thus I pointed my referencing of Cassandra Whitehead out to her and suggested she use it as an example for the other articles. Some of her citing was less than accurate but some was spot on, although her referencing style needed work (hence providing an example). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you contact me?

Hi Longhair,

Can you contact me at the email address found here? I have a question for you. Thanks, --Thebee 12:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you look at ...

Hi Longhair,

As you're now involved in the improvement project with regard to the article on Waldorf education, could you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Waldorf_education#Question_to_Admins

Also, could you look at if you think the argumentation in an article published at http://en.wikipedia.org/PLANS#In_Support_of_PLANS is in line with Wiki policies and -style, and if the long quote found at http://en.wikipedia.org/PLANS#Waldorf_Master_Teacher_talks_about_PLANS is in line with Misplaced Pages copyright policy? Thanks! --Thebee 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Waldorf_education#.22Yours_are_the_ravings_of_a_lunatic.22 Thanks, --Thebee 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi I noticed this and have warned the user making the comments about ravings. Regards --Arktos 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, how do you look at this ?

It documents, that the user in question as part of the discussion of the article has published statements, that, when investigated turn out to be demonstrable libel (demonstrated at the discussion page 14:49, 28 August 2006) and slander, also demonstrated in the section (07:57, 29 August and 16:06, 29 August)?

When I've asked him if he was aware of that (not as a threat, just as a matter of investigated and at the page demonstrated fact), he has answered that he was, and that he published the libel consciously:

I: "On "Nobody could mistake what I said as libelous, but you're welcome to try to make that charge stick." What you wrote was untruthful and defamatory." (23:53, 28 August)

The user: "Yep. It was intended to be." (05:48, 29 August 2006)

The conscious libel and (in spite of repeated request for substantiation) unverified slander is what has preceded the last personal attack.

The user also repeatedly insists on implementing guidelines differently for links he likes and links he does not like.

In response to a question regarding his latest personal attack: if he really wanted to violate the Misplaced Pages guidelines against such a statement as he makes in the attack, again, he has answered (06:27, 1 September) "I'm just going to sit back and be satisfied with the fact that you put it in very large type."

Where does Misplaced Pages draw the line for acceptable behaviour by editors?

Thanks, --Thebee 07:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Longhair,

You assume I've discussed with PK (and DW) before. That's right. In a posting from Nov. last year at his own mailing list, PK told about that discussion. He made maybe about 700 postings in about 6 weeks before he was blocked, (like DW) and a number of his sensational, critical/defamatory posting were deleted, partly probably because of fear of a lawsuit for libel against the forum provider from one or more WSchools. I made maybe 10% as many postings, trying to answer some of the defamation spread by the WCs involved and was busted too. Not for any defamation, but for just trying to answer the many defamatory allegations in the W-part of the M-forum. The primary goal of the Mothering forums is to build the M-community. Not having that as a primary goal, but just to answer defamatory allegations by some WCs in one forum was not accepted. Don't remember one of my postings were deleted for any violation. --Thebee 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have one further question to you at my Talks page. Thanks, --Thebee 07:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spam?

Just wondering what you think about this members userpage? -- Robertmyers 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Skafbilal.jpg copyright violation

Hi Longhair. The above photo seems to have been taken from a newspaper, not a press kit. As such it doesn't qualify for fair use. It really should be deleted or replaced with an image under a free license. John Dalton 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it in the US all (federal?) government documents are public domain. Hence mug shots, NASA data and so on are public domain and can be used in wikipedia. In Australia all government output is covered by crown copyright. This means they are "all rights reserved" and cannot be uploaded to Misplaced Pages. There is also a difference in that the US has fair use. This is a set of conditions which trump copyright law, allowing copyrighted material to be used. Australia has a much narrower set of exemptions to copyright (eg. a limited number of pages for education). I guess it might be possible (under US law) that if it is a police mug shot released to the press it is part of a press kit and qualifies (in the US only) for fair use. My only interest in the picture is to try and keep Misplaced Pages "pure" and free of copyright problems.John Dalton 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lil Flip246 again

User:Lil Flip246 is still ignoring advice given by multiple editors and admins. Take a look at the Lisa D'Amato article, for example. Not only is it filled with unsourced gossip, her citation links still don't contain the information they're supposed to be sourcing, and she still uses "I saw on it TV myself" and "Someone said it on MySpace" as sources. I would hate to think that an editor could get by with such recklessness on a grand scale simply by being persistent. wikipediatrix 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your post to her talk page didn't work. Check this out. At what point will this be regarded willful vandalism? I think we're well past the point now. wikipediatrix 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:Coverage maps

Sure. What do you want me to do? -- Froggydarb 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you want each region to have a border? -- Froggydarb 06:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Something like this? -- Froggydarb 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hows that. I needed to enlarge the image so you could actually see the key. -- Froggydarb 03:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Waldorf Project Strategy

Dear Longhair and Cormaggio, Thank you immeasurably for your help with the Waldorf project so far. With your admin experience, and the amount of back-n-forth this article has undergone - actually speeding up since the proposed project - I would like your opinion on strategies to manage the project if you should have time.

I see two major issues:

1 there are "sides" within the group instead of a single focus on creating a good article. While this is somewhat to be expected, I also expected a greater level of professionalism. Is there a known strategy to begin to turn this around?

2 Unbelievably, I think,we have actually reached almost a consensus on the Introduction. I would like to focus on this positive and if possible have it become a springboard for examining just one section at a time. 3 On the current project page, a format for the article has been proposed, while the person actually rewrote the whole article, I propose taking just the OUTLINE - the section names 0- and beginnning with agreeing upon the sections.

Other than the administrative questions, my project strategy will be to set up two pages within the alt ed project:

1 to lay out a structure - outline only - for the page 2 to finalize with formal agreement, the introduction. 3 ONLY begin work on the next section when we have agreed upon the above two, then moving just one section at a time.

My hope is that it will disarm the ongoing wars over fine points and pet projects.

What is your opinion?

And thank you from the bottom of my transplanted Texas heart! Wonderactivist 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank your for your work so far.

I will take yor advice. I have asked everyone to take a break for a couple of days to cool heads and get everything set up properly. Meanwhile, I'm taking a Wiki Project crash course! I hope it is OK to print out instruction pages. Wonderactivist 04:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Steve Irwin talk

I was serious, Steve Irwin made a lot of money in his life time, one of the richest tv personalities in Australia, and the amount they travel it is extremely unlikely that Ms Irwin was "too far" to be contacted before the worlds press found out. Thanks for messaging me in any case JayKeaton 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rape, I was just writing it as I saw it on the actual page itself which looking back said rape itself several minutes before I wrote it, I write several thousand words an hour, while I try my best to check them all, I obviously can't and will not make a fuss over a talk page. Did you delete my post? Please, just stay out of my way, thank you. JayKeaton 10:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I just assumed you deleted it because you were talking to me about a post I didn't give a second thought about, looking back through the many edits it was a different username that did it. I will fight any move to block me, the only accusation I've had about vandalism on a wiki slash page was just a case of mistaken identity, I just happen to make a typo fix edit inbetween two vandal posts. I believe my input to wikipedia is important and any move to block me WILL be fought. JayKeaton 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you block this user, please?

WolfStar3 (talk · contribs) -- man, is it a new thing to have vandals pretending to be bots, or is it just me? Getting this a few times on Commons: now too. Ta, pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

I see your monitoring the events on that page, can I suggest that the talk page gets some archiving the page is already getting difficult to read. Gnangarra 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

could you help to frame the page please its the one thing I'm all that knowledgable on Gnangarra 10:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

just something simple aka AfD when discussions are closed, but if you think its not necssary then I wont argue. Gnangarra 10:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I think I got all sorted now, can you delete Talk:Steve Irwin/Archives its not needed now Gnangarra 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, re:admin I just enjoy poking around, besides there are helpful people like you and User:Snottygobble for more authorative tasks. :) Gnangarra 11:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Chooks

• I am sorry to hear about the chooks. We had chooks at one stage and the fox got them - horrible and wasteful.--Arktos 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFL template

Interesting, thanks for the info mate. Looking at the history of the template there seems to be quite a few edits...I was following the example of the {{welcome}} template to invite potential Australian rules football editors to the project. Do you know of any way to fix this? Rogerthat 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so there's the problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention mate, much appreciated - I'll start working on an alternative way to make it stylised. How about those Cats hey? ;) Rogerthat 10:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha :) BTW, I've made a change to the template if you're interested - I think it looks at least slightly better now - I thank you for alerting me to the necessary change. Have a good one, Rogerthat 10:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I was only a 1 year old back in '89, but I've seen the game on DVD, one of the greats. Footy's like that and can be very painful, but when you win, you understand what makes it so great. Rogerthat 10:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could say I never saw many of the greats - Hird, Buckley, Voss, Carey, Harvey are the greatest I've seen (as well as Ablett towards the end of his career). Many past players are out of touch with the game as well, Harmes is one who hasn't gone to a game in years and never will again. It's still the best sport in the world to play and watch, but it looks like we'll see less chipping around and more contested footy in the coming years - it doesn't work unless you're Sydney. Rogerthat 11:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there was a small image of that mark in The Age a few weeks back, he also talked about it retrospectively. Looked like a ripper, amazing that you were there to see it. Rogerthat 12:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another small favour...

Would you mind indulging me and letting me know if there were any edits to Image:Irwinzoo getty.jpg after my last edit and before its deletion? If so, could you email them to me? I'm curious.... thanks. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:NedKelly armour 1880.jpg

• I don't think the picture was taken and published earlier than 1955 judging from the way it was displayed although the SLV doesn't say when the image was produced. I suspect it is a copyvio :-( --Arktos 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for acting on Jeremy's request.--Arktos 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Are you going to give him the same warning? You should note that he got catty with me in such a fashion some two minutes before I posted that reply on his talk page. Amazing that a PUBLIC talk page can have him telling me that wikipedia would be better without me but a PRIVATE talk page in reply can't have a punch thrown back. It's nice to see cronyism (and I use it in its political sense of partiality before you fly off the cuff on me again) is alive and well. You know, I might respect your warnings if they were applied with a bit of consistency. As it stands, you revert my edits to his private discussion page to hide what would be potentially embarassing to him, yet leave his little indictment of good riddance to bad rubbish on the public discussion page with a) no warning towards him and b) no reversion either. Thank God for diffs. Professor Ninja 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no need for the diffs. Yeesh, gone are the days where you could spar a man without any policing. I don't want to "rat him out"... I'd just like a little fair consistency when applying the rules. I take umbrage at being hit with the first punch and then getting chastised for throwing the second one. I realise Mr. Irwin's death is a shock, but frankly the way Kingboyk was attempting to throw his weight around until he got his way in some childish tantrum was severely grating on my nerves. I've been trying to keep another set of sturdy hands on the article, all the while attempting to make meaningful contributions that, about 99% of the time, result in edit conflicts, while having to wade through either sentimental tributes on the talk page of Mr. Irwin's article, or yet another reposting of media coverage of the vandalism of the article (which only serves to attract more vandals). Doing that on top of having to put up with a person who's taking a superior position for "contributing more than me" and telling me that if I left wikipedia it would be "good riddance" in a fit is about all I can take. Then chuck your warnings on top of it and try to understand how close to a stroke I am. I don't mean to be snarky, but for us peons, editing wikipedia is a thankless bitch goddess. Professor Ninja 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I don't even know what edit we're talking about anymore. I don't make a habit of personally attacking people though -- yeah I get riled up, but I calm down quick. There's no sense getting worked up when in the end other than the trolls and vandals we're all trying to do our best. Professor Ninja 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: armour

I would have to agree, unfortunately. Although the armour was made in 1880, the photo very much was not. As it's a photo of a 3D object, it can take on new copyrights (unlike a photo of a 2D object). But isn't it still on display? Should be easy to replace. :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Canckoi

I don't think that backslashing business is deliberate vandalism. As I understand it, inserting random backslashes through pages means the user is using an open proxy and should be blocked. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin posted something about it earlier in the year. I can't find it atm, but there's some discussion of backslashing: here. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It's still a work in progress. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dracula is not pleased with you

Dracula thinks you are a bad man, and do not deserve to be on Misplaced Pages, you shall find out your fate within the next 7 days. King Dracula 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)