Misplaced Pages

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Inbox Comments Go Here

Offer to mediate "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"

Thanks for offering to do informal mediation with these parties. I hope they work with you to resolve their conflict. Take care, FloNight 19:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion recreation

I believe you deleted this article per the AfD discussion, and the main proponent has recreated it. I thought a deletion review process would be in store if there was objection to the AfD process. Can you clarify what's happening here? Thanks! --Keesiewonder 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have redeleted the article and yes, Deletion review is the correct process. ⇒ SWATJester 20:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but, I'm sorry to say it's back. --Keesiewonder 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent; I see you've taken care of this for now ... --Keesiewonder 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New South Wales University Theatrical Society

Hi...you've recently relisted this AfD to generate further discussion... I'm still concerned this AfD has not been listed as a second nomination: the first result was keep. ( 1st Nomination discussion.) Aren't all 2nd nominations meant to be clearly marked for those who do not read everyone else's statements, but prefer to simply look at the article and respond? Can AfDs be closed and relisted, or do 1st nomination dates have a natural expiry date? I'm still fairly new and curious, thanks. Regards, --Greatwalk 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Er huh? According to the article, , it says "This article is being considered for deletion for the 2nd time in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy." That seems pretty clearly marked to me. The link goes to which is "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New South Wales University Theatrical Society (2nd nomination)". It seems pretty clear that it is a second nomination.

As for the relisting procedure, all AFD's have a 5 day period. On the 5th day, if a clear consensus is reached, the article is kept or deleted or whatever the consenus was. If no clear consenus is reached on the 5th day, or if not enough people have offered an opinion on the article, it can be "relisted", which simply extends the current nomination beyond another 5 days, it doesn't make it a new one. ⇒ SWATJester 05:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Very strange: I wonder how come the 2nd nomination info doesn't show up here, in the Australia related forum? Oh well.... Thanks. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably because whoever included it there messed up. Oh btw, I'm working on your issue with deleted material on Lunisolar calendar now. I believe Pak21 is confused. See my comments on his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester 05:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I think Pak may have been partially correct, though. Aside from returning the links and references to the calendars, I did come back at a second time and attempt to merge material from Simple lunisolar calendar and Hermetic leap week calendar because I thought they would make good examples and both articles were quite short. I thought I was being WP:Bold, but both articles were still under discussion on the AfD boards (no decision had been made, but both were later deleted). I still think they were fine, but Pak (though tending to be a bit rude) is probably correct...I shouldn't have merged the material. The copyvio he refers to was me not crediting the original material. My reaction was mostly due to the fact he threatened further punitive action, instead of checking to see if a mistake had occurred first.

If you could revert the article back to include the links (redlinks and external) and passing mentions of the calendars, I'd appreciate it. (That's the way the article was to begin with. Also, I'd like to hear back if you think the merged material is suitable. It's kind of you to think to do this. Warm regards, --Greatwalk 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I really, really suggest you learn what the GFDL says before you go any further. To quote from the Guide to deletion: "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression." The GFDL requires that all material be attributable to its original author; because the original has been deleted, that information is no longer available (to the general reader), so it is a copyright violation. Section 4(B) of the GFDL if you're really not aware of it. --Pak21 08:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe I understand: that means I can ask for temporary undeletions of all the removed articles to retrieve the authors Wikitags ('names') and merge the content back to appropriate parent articles? If so, fantastic! (Win-win situation). Regards, --Greatwalk 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Easier would just be a history-only undelete. However, at least for Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar, there was a clear consensus at AfD against merging the material (all of myself, Black Falcon and 4.246.200.154 recommend against merge), so I would ask you why you believe there is a consensus for this action?

It strongly believe it is still a copyright violation. That material was not written by you (or Greatwalk, therefore neither of you can add it to any article without crediting the original author as required by section 4(B) of the GFDL. --Pak21 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK... I believe the material is a direct copy from the deleted articles Simple lunisolar calendar and Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar. Will you please check for me? --Pak21 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I realise that. However, the history is not viewable by a non-admin (ie 99.999% of the world's population). This does not satisfy the attribution requirement. --Pak21 16:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As you've now seen, the consensus on the adminstrator's noticeboard is that that the attribution must be publicly viewable, despite your assertions to the contrary. Personally, I am somewhat shocked that an admin involved in the deletion process could have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the GFDL. --Pak21 16:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, I'm well aware of how the deletion process works, and the difference between notability and verifiability. I have explained the reasoning for my removal of the deleted information at Talk:Calendar reform#Mention_of_proposed_calendars; this action has been confirmed as correct ("On the other hand, if Pak had provided an edit summary that justified removal of the information based on the absence of an appropriate reference, that would be irrefutably correct.") by User:Hesperian at User talk:Greatwalk#Calendars. --Pak21 08:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmmm....I think that quote may be a bit out of context, given prior discussions with other editors about the suitabity of these references, the terms of WP:Consensus and the fact that similar edits made by other editors exist on other pages Pak has chosen not to revert. IMO...I'm curious to know, though. Regards, --Greatwalk 08:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact I have not reverted every such action across all of Misplaced Pages does not mean that it is incorrect to revert such edits in one article. WP:INN et al. --Pak21 09:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pak, you appear to be quite handy with guidelines except for WP:Consensus, but still tend to ignore all points made that you can't refute completely (as above), so I find you quite difficult to communicate with in any real sense of the term.

You have reverted all changes SwatJester made again, including the redlinks and external links that were there before, and I still do not understand your reasoning in doing so. In the interest of consensus, I'd like to hear from others on this point...I'm not interested in more reverting, and suspect it is wrong to keep doing this regardless. --Greatwalk 09:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And I don't believe the result of Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar was 'against' a merge. --Greatwalk 09:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AI

Thank you for making a report on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! ⇒ SWATJester 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, AIV is for vandalism, not content disputes and not for gaining an upper hand in an edit war.⇒ SWATJester 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this quite unhelpful. Repeatedly removing sources and text from the same page without explanation is not what one does in a "content dispute" it is vandalism. Perhaps I should have been more patient and given the prescribed warnings, but considering the history... and the eventual outcome...

The real question is why are you leaving this note on this page when I'm the one who posted to AIV? Oh well, at least some other editors stepped up and took care of this. -MrFizyx 22:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Its moot. Thanks for correcting the error on biochemnick's page. -MrFizyx 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet troll squads

Please see that Biophys removed a tag for deletion although there is no any dispute on the deletion discussion talk page. Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Internet_troll_squads&diff=prev&oldid=115829443. Vlad fedorov 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tim Ingold

Regarding your warning messsage put on my talk page:

1. I have no memory of any recent edit on the article. If it's an older edit, I can't find it in my edit record either
2. Secondly, the page seems to have been deleted, so I have no means to find out the exact reason either
3. Your message on my talk page is posted as a subsection of another completely non-related message. And I do not expect such naivity from an admin.

So, unless you give me any hint of the violation, I do not have any clue to the situation. Thanks for your clarification. --IslesCape 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I can figure out your mistake in putting the message in wrong section, but what I still can't figure out is on what grounds have I been issued a warning for copyright violation? If I don't know the exact reason, how can I avoid it in future? If you can't find out on your own, pls suggest a suitable person/way to find out. --IslesCape 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for coming back to you, but the problem is that I have a copyright infringement tag stamped on my talk page which is not a pleasant sight, and I want to make sure not to have a repeat of such incident.

• I can't find any history of my edits to the page, which means that I cannot locate my exact edits. There was no intentional violation. It was probably among my earlier contributions on WP while learning the ropes, and hasn't been on my watch list.
• What I would like to know is whether WP:C was followed?
• If so, why I wasn't notified of the situation earlier?
• And it wasn't either posted on WP:CP!

In this situation, I would appreciate if you could restore the article and allow the situation to be redressed. Thanks --IslesCape 22:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lying Liars

Hi SwatJester,

My frustration may have been partially based my misunderstanding you. At one point, you said: I think we can go ahead and include everything that is not struck out, with the exception of the plagiarism section which we should rework a little bit more before including. Any objections? ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 16:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understood it, that referred to a draft to which there were still numerous objections, and to which new items had recently been added. I was frustrated that you would take that approach so quickly, and surprised that other editors seemed to be allowing that text to mostly stand. But it seems like I might have misunderstood what was going on.

Since then, you have started what seems like a very workable system, in which we can discuss individual items, and clearly see what conclusions are being reached. Now that I understand where you're going with this, I can see that my post may have been an overreaction. I'm happy to work within the system you've proposed.

Thanks for your help in keeping us focused. -Pete 00:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

experience

I certainly hope you are not arguing that your thousands and thousands of edits make you somehow a better reader than me. Because that IP has productively edited Black people, including reverting vandalism.

The comment is a legitimate question: are the articles being handled differently? It happens to be one I don't have an answer for - as I've only glanced at White people and have not edited it. I happen to think it is ok if the articles are handled differently. But that doesn't make the question wrong.

You think there is reverse racism? Address it on his talk page. After a gazillion edits I would have thought you would have figured that out. Jd2718 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never claimed such. Please don't get me wrong. Nor do I say that the IP is a vandal or anything of the like. However, I'm saying that it WAS an uncivil comment, and thus I removed it. It was directed negatively at another user. ⇒ SWATJester 05:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do as you will. I'm both tired and annoyed, which I recognize is probably more a reflection on my need to sign off than anything else. Good night. Jd2718 06:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

On AN, you wrote about a user: "Has anyone noticed that he's not actually contributing to the encyclopedia, and just social networking? No constructive edits since October of last year? It's time for a "time-out" block for this kiddy." My question is: what do you feel should be done to users who go months (or years) at a time without contributing anything, mainspace, userspace, or anywhere? I presume (hope) the answer is nothing; it would be crazy to block people from editing for not editing. Personally, I don't see what the difference is. Is perfecting one's signature or signing autograph books harmful? Of course not—and a person who does those things exclusively is actually closer to becoming a mainspace contributor than someone who isn't active at all, since they are engaged, right? Why would we want to discourage them? Everyking 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Again personal attack by user CPTGbr

Swatjester, please look CPTGbr called me troll diff on the deletion discussion page. Moreover he also was uncivil for me at the talk page for FSB, here is the diff. Vlad fedorov 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Badshah Qadri

Thanks for you comments on Mohammad Badshah Qadri in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. I doubt that a whole book has been written about him, at least not in English. However, I am almost certain that I will find sufficient mention of him in either Haeri, Muneera (2000) The Chishtis: a living light Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, ISBN 0195793277, or Ernst, Carl W. and Lawrence, Bruce B. (2002) Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond Palgrave Macmillan, New York, ISBN 1403960267, both of which I have requested on inter-library loan. The search terms that Library of Congress uses here are: Chishtiyah and Chishtiyah members -- Biography. I am more sanguine about the Ernst book because it has a chapter entitled: Modern Day Chishtis. --Bejnar 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikistock Deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikistock. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rovo79 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem with a user

Please would you consider blocking (even temporarily) User:Alfred Vella who keeps reverting and vandalising pages, eg Harpenden where he reverted the new info box and re-instated vandalism. and Milton Keynes College where he insists on adding info about the Univesity of Luton (with which he has a personal problem). Many thanks for having a lookGazMan7 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)