| Revision as of 13:30, 6 July 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits →Deletion of talk pages with deletion discussion: clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:26, 6 July 2007 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,091 edits archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:JzG/Archive-{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}-{{CURRENTYEAR}}--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:JzG/Archive-{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}-{{CURRENTYEAR}}--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | ||
| ---- | |||
| Today was an interesting day for me, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. As well as exchanging emails with people spanning pretty much the entire gamut from banned trolls to Jimbo, I had a talk with Danny and another with Jeff Merkey. And you know something? Despite deep-seated differences about many things of pressing importance to the project and its future, the one thing that was never in doubt was that all of us - Jimbo, Danny, Jeff, various admins and several long-standing editors and former admins - want the same thing. | |||
| We want to build a credible online encyclopaedia. | |||
| We may disagree about how best to do that, what precisely constitutes credible, what should be done to attract the right kinds of people, how ready we should be to kick out the wrong kinds of people, but in the end there is no doubt that success is going to look pretty much the same to all of us, at least from the outside. It's going to look a lot like Misplaced Pages does right now, almost certainly with some form of stable versions (which will be a massive boon in fighting vandalism, perhaps allowing me to get back to writing articles more - this may not be altogether a good thing). It's going to have a many fewer "biographies" of kids who once did something stupid or maybe whose friends did something stupid, many fewer news stories of no lasting historical or societal consequences, a tighter focus on sourcing and good writing. | |||
| Hell, even Larry Sanger wants the same thing. Everybody who has been involved with Misplaced Pages in more than a trivial capacity seems to be fundamentally in agreement on the core objective. We have built an online encyclopaedia, we proved that could be done. Step 2 is to make it more credible. Right now it is a curate's egg - parts of it are excellent. | |||
| I suspect we all share much the same general view of the enemies of this aim. Trolls. Vandals. Abusers of the project. You can abuse the project in many ways: self-promotion, pursuing your external political or personal agenda, violating the privacy of others, harassment, perpetuating the harassment of others. There are some things it is safe to leave to other sites. | |||
| If your aim is the same as mine, then we probably are not going to have a problem getting along. And if we do, it's because we haven't had a talk a bout it. You can send me email. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Natalina Mathias== | |||
| You have put a tag on this article so that it cannot be created. I dont mind but i think that you should not have put siliness as the reason because it is a true article | |||
| and i just could not get enough information. I am a member of the Lari family as it says in the article | |||
| == Helpme == | |||
| Hi, I have all of the copyrights to the pictures that I am putting on Misplaced Pages. I have never put up a page before and I do not think I am citing them correctly. As a result, I have been accused of blatant copyright infringement, which isn't true. I saw that you were the person that last took down the page I created, and then blocked me from trying to edit it and fix the problem. I'm really sorry that I didn't put the page up correctly, but if you could help me I would really appreciate it!!! Thanks. | |||
| == Improvised explosive device vandalism == | |||
| Hello, I read the message ('''Please stop now''') you left for me in my User Talk page. Thanks you for communicating with me. | |||
| However, I must inform you that it is not my intention to vandalise or misuse Misplaced Pages. | |||
| I made alteration on the ] and I left a message on the Discussion board. I also communicated with ]. This user simply did not reply and reverted to the previous version. | |||
| I do not understand why you are asking me to stop. I will now revert back the the changes I made as it it my right as a Misplaced Pages user. I am open and welcome to any future discussion. Thank you -- ] | |||
| == Jennifer Ann Crecente == | |||
| You had entered the below comment in the discussion of the deletion review of the above referenced article. I posted a response there but would like the opportunity to discuss your thoughts in greater detail and so have included both your comment and my response below. The deletion review does not seem to be the appropriate venue for ad detailed conversation but I'm hopeful that you'll be comfortable with having that conversation here instead. | |||
| ---- | |||
| * Here we go again. This is another article that pretends to be a biography but isn't. If the law gets passed, it will make a fine start for an article on the law, but the case itself is a news story not an encyclopaedic biography of a person. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** '''Comment''' Actually there is not one, but two laws that are associated with the subject of this article and both have already passed the Texas Senate and House. One has been signed by Governor Perry and the other becomes law on Sept 1st by default. The relevant content is up above but I'll reproduce it here with emphasis added to the pertinent sections: | |||
| :* On February 5, 2007, the Texas Legislature's State Representative Dawnna Dukes entered a bill to require school districts in Texas to create policies regarding Teen Dating Violence. This bill was created in memory of Jennifer Ann Crecente and Ortralla Mosley. Jennifer Ann's Group provided testimony on February 8, 2007 to the legislature in support of this bill. '''Governor Rick Perry signed the bill into law on May 18, 2007 and it immediately went into effect.''' (emphasis added) | |||
| :* On February 15, 2007, on the the one-year anniversary of Jennifer's murder, Senator Eliot Shapleigh entered a bill to grant posthumous diplomas to students that have been murdered during their Senior year of high school. The bill is named "Jennifer's Law". On May 28, 2007 the bill was signed in the Senate and passed to the Governor Rick Perry for signing. '''It will go into effect upon being signed or September 1, 2007, whichever occurs first.''' (emphasis added) | |||
| :As to your comment about "Here we go again." it's difficult for me to respond without more specifics. My understanding is that this is a forum to discuss not the merits of the article but instead the unilateral "speedy delete" by ] Drew30319 23:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * It means the subject is the ''law'', not the individual. It should be merged and redirected to the ''law''. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :* There currently is no article about either of the ''two'' laws. However the subject meets the guideline criteria in ]. Do you feel that more information needs to be added to create more of a "biography?" ] 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :* I've yet to receive a response to my question above. Do you feel that more information needs to be added to create more of a "biography?" Or do you agree with me that the article meets ]? I'm hoping to have a constructive conversation with you about this but it's difficult if you don't respond. ] 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Barrett == | |||
| I'm going on Wikibreak in a few minutes; could you also make changes #1 and #4 from my {{tl|editprotected}} request on ] per agreement of the inserting editor? You made #2, per BLP, although it was disputed, and #3 is a ''subtle'' change of wording which I think made the sentence incorrect, but probably not ''necessary'' under the editprotected guidelines. — ] | ] 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == HHO gas == | |||
| Hi. Can you explain why you deleted the redirects from ] and ] (but not ] or ], for instance)? As I ], these and other synonyms should probably be protected redirects, and the article histories should be kept for attribution reasons. If they aren't made into redirects for some reason, they should, at the very least, be salted as per their AfDs. — ] 03:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Pardon? == | |||
| How is <span class="plainlinks"></span> a privacy violation? It is rather obvious that the only person who could have known and blocked all of CharlotteWebb's IPs was a checkuser. Corroborating that with <span class="plainlinks"></span> and ] of all checkusers, it is easy to see that is the only person who could have blocked all 400+ of CharlotteWebb's IPs. --] 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Revealing the identity of the blocking checkuser allows privacy to be compromised. Which is, I'm guessing, why CW never did so. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ** I'm at a loss as to how it allows privacy to be compromised, but I guess I'm glad I didn't post my evidence, seeing as it was going to be a detailed analysis of that checkuser's block log, and by posting it I would have been allowed privacy to be compromised. --] 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Correct. But do feel free to email it to the arbitrators directly. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Everyone knows by now who blocked CW's IPs, so why not just tell it? If someone wants to know CW's IP addresses, they will just look into *CENSORED*'s block log at the appropriate date and find it. <b>]]</b> 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * For the record, in retrospect, I endorse JzG's actions. I was thinking earlier when I wanted to present evidence that might not be good to do so on-wiki. At any rate, I think it is best if this is dropped and/or this thread removed. --] 20:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'm not familiar with this matter, but looked suspicious. Hope I got it right. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| Guy, would you please comment ]? Thanks, ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Any ideas? == | |||
| Do you have any ideas for what to do about this page: ]? The last MfD closed with no consensus. It seems pretty straightforward to me but I still didn't want to renominate it right away. <span style="font-family:serif;">—]✰]</span> 16:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. ] is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the ] policy. ] is admonished for undeleting content deleted under ] without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined ]. ] is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, ]<sup>(])</sup> 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Links to deleted articles == | |||
| Just a reminder that it's usual to delete incoming links, especially redirects, to articles that you delete (such as ]). ] ] 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Takes a while, though, and interferes with my singing practice. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Combine the two - sing the article names. Use the keys A, F, and D. ] ] 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Heh! Singing ] at the moment. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Roy Oldham== | |||
| Yeah, this information is all on the Tameside Council website. Have only included the NPOV bits. Have referenced it.] 21:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think any of the information I added is controversial. Rather than keep deleting most of the article and turning it back into a stub when people add things, wouldn't it be better to allow the article to develop naturally. The idea being that a balance will come about and be maintained without special help or intervention. There wouldn't be much left on wikipedia if we were all so quick to delete articles that don't yet meet the desired standard on sources. ] 21:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * No. Because what you are adding is a flagrant violation of ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Can you tell me how it is biased please?] 22:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * It reads as a laundry list of grudges from political opponents. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Is it just me, or does this more resemble a ] than it does a biography? And yes, ]. --] | ] 14:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dwsolo== | |||
| Hi Guy | |||
| I don't understand what you are doing to me. | |||
| I am adding links to free recordings of performances of music referred to in Misplaced Pages (which you said on 29th June 2007 in the personal profile of my wiki persona dwsolo would be "most welcome") and yet you are deleting them! | |||
| Please explain. | |||
| Please look at my site (well one of them) at www.dwschorale.com and explain why you have objections to them being linked to from wikipedia - in particular in view of the fact that many people have downloaded the free mp3s of performances over the past few months directly from the wikipeda pages, which shows that there is genuine interest | |||
| You can reply to me direct at solomons8 yahoodotcodotuk | |||
| Thanks | |||
| David | |||
| * You are adding links to your own website. If you want to upload free content, please do, but only if you have the full rights to the performance (including any accompaniment). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am adding links to my own website - well obviously, I don't have rights to music on other people's sites! - those on my site are the recordings to which I DO HAVE full rights, in that I sang them (all the voice parts) I created the accompaniment (where there is any) and the music is either in the public domain or my own compositions or arrangements or compositions by friends who have given me permission to perform and record them. Furthermore you have deleted my name from the Delian Society page. WHY????? I am a member of the Delian Society. Thirdly was it you who removed Jean Chatillon's Misplaced Pages article about me? | |||
| If so, I am getting the impression that you have something personal against me. | |||
| David | |||
| * Do not add links to our own website. It is considered spamming. I have nothign against you, I do have something against people adding links to their own websites. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You allow links to external websites, whether professional or not. Where do you draw the line? Is is necessary for someone else to add links to my performances? Or would you delete those as well. And if so why, since they would then be added by some who doesn't own the website in question? | |||
| Also who keeps deleting my name from the Delian Society page??? There's no link to an external website of mine there. | |||
| : You add your website, we call it ]. | |||
| : You add your name, we call it ] | |||
| : You appear to be attempting to use Misplaced Pages for self-promotion. Please don't. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am not using it for self promotion I am offering a free service to those who are interested in hearing the music by the composers in question. So again I ask: where do you draw the line? This must lie at the centre of your policy surely: you must decide at some point that an external link is allowed, so what is that point? If you don't have an allowability point then surely - logically - you must exclude ALL external links. Is that point that some stranger adds a link? If so, how do you know that it is a stranger adding it and that it is allowable? | |||
| As to the reference to VAIN - that is also incorrect. VAIN would be where someobody adds their name where it does not belong. It is no more vain to add my name than to add the names of other members of the Delian Society, since all are members. | |||
| Hi Guy | |||
| I have finally worked out how to make an ogg file, which wiki allows. The path is: | |||
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Tallis_if_ye_love_me_performed_by_the_dwsChorale.ogg | |||
| Is that acceptable? Attached to the Tallis page now, I trust it's ok? | |||
| == WP:BLP and Jeff Merkey == | |||
| I already made some grammatical changes. Nothing controversial, so nobody panic, OK? | |||
| On 12 June 2007, you removed a section of content from Jeff Merkey's bio, with the note "That is a terrible source, polemical and not in the least bit scholarly. We have a better source already for the same information." I have come to agree with you on this point: because scofacts.org is very biased (probably since the operator of the site was one of the people sued by Merkey), links to pages at scofacts.org should not be in the article, on grounds of NPOV. | |||
| However, you did not replace the information you deleted with the "better source" to which you referred, nor name that better source, so I don't quite understand your edit summary. Can you please explain? | |||
| The ] reader in me wants to see the actual court document, and it is very useful in understanding the claim. The article as it stands today says "various charges concerning harassment," but harassment is actually the least of the charges made - treason, support of terrorism and solicitation of murder among them. Without more explanation, it is difficult to get a better understanding of the basis of the suit. And explanation without a source is impermissible, so what better source that the very document that Merkey himself wrote? | |||
| I would like to re-add a link to the actual court document. It is available on a few websites, almost all of them biased against Merkey, some much worse than others. Perhaps a statement in the footnote explaining that the hosting site is biased would balance that a bit more? I also noticed that ip-wars.net is already used as a source, and the court document is also hosted there, so does that count as a "better source" to re-add a direct link to the court document? | |||
| The other source removed was lwn.net, where the original comment was made that formed part of the basis of the lawsuit. lwn.net directly commented on this claim. Do you consider this site as polemical and un-scholarly as scofacts.org? The court document presents one side of the story regarding Bruce Perens' comment; lwn.net presents the other, and not with the kind of vitriol and mocking that you find on scofacts.org. So this would seem like an acceptable source, at least to me. | |||
| Also, the final resolution of Merkey's re-opening of the case against Al Petrofsky is available, though I believe only from Petrofsky's site. Stating that the "case re-opened" without explaining whether it's still open or what the resolution was kind of leaves the reader hanging. I think it would be informative to state (with cite, naturally) the final resolution of the case. | |||
| I'm interested to hear your thoughts and comments on each of these points. Thanks. ] 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I am very wary of using court documents as sources, especially filings (which have often not been weighed by the courts, the cases are frequently settled out of court). Much better to stick to what reliable independent sources say. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think a court document can be a good source, depending on how it's used. Consider, for example, a situation where Alice sues Bob, claiming that Bob did X (whatever X might be). An article about Bob <s>should</s>must not include this information, for the very reason you cited: it hasn't been weighed by the court. However, it seems that an article about Alice could say "Alice has, in a court filing, accused Bob of doing X" and then point to the court document which Alice filed. The court document is not only the best source of the accusation, it ''is'' the accusation. | |||
| ::There are two references to court documents, and I'd like to break them out separately. | |||
| ::*The initial filing in ''Merkey v. Perens, et al.'' made an accusation. The accuser's bio could state that accusation, with the accuser's own words as the source. The accusation itself is not being presented as true; what's being presented as fact is that a specific accusation was made. | |||
| ::*The final resolution of the portion of ''Merkey v. Perens, et al.'' that was re-opened against Al Petrofsky: this is another court document, a signed order from the judge. Therefore, it ''has'' been weighed by the court. However, this document appears to be available only from Petrofsky's website, and so raises the question of linking to it. Do you feel that a statement of the resolution in the main article, a link to the PDF directly on Petrofsky's site, and a disclaimer of some sort noting that the site is hosted by one of the defendants and must therefore be considered biased would be sufficient? Or is the resolution of the case (from my memory: no damages awarded, Petrofsky specifically enjoined to not distribute a certain document) uncontroversial enough to include without a reference? | |||
| ::The reference at lwn.net does quote the ''Merkey v. Perens, et al.'' filing very briefly. I therefore believe that including a link to the court document is appropriate, in the interest of completeness. If we consider lwn.net to be a "reliable, independent" source (reliable, yes; independent, questionable), then including the court document shows that they did not misquote it, either accidentally or deliberately. | |||
| ::When you say "much better to stick to what reliable independent sources say," you do realize that these reliable independent sources look at the court document and then say something about it. So by pointing to the court document itself, we are actually bringing the information one step closer to the user; the user may read the document for himself and make his own decision, rather than relying on someone else to interpret it. ] 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == When should a talk page be deleted? == | |||
| I noticed your deletion of ], but noticed that the talk page is still there at ]. Should that be kept, or will it eventually be deleted? I noticed that the presence of the WPBiography template and its rating means that the article is still listed in the WPBiography assessment lists (for now at ]). Also, the following on the talk page documented that the article had been cited in a newspaper - is that sort of thing normally kept somewhere if an article is deleted? | |||
| {{onlinesource|section=August 2005 | |||
| |year=2005 | |||
| |monthday=4 August | |||
| |author=Leo, Peter | |||
| |title=Panhandling for fun and profit | |||
| |org=] | |||
| |url=http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05216/548334.stm | |||
| }} | |||
| Actually, the newspaper cite is linked, in the "details" bit above, to ], so the talk page template can be dumped if the rest of the page is deleted. But what about the discussion on the talk page? What do you think? ] 15:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Wait a bit and see if anything productive emerges, was my thought here. It may be that someone can come up with something other than the tabloid immigrant-bashing crap, although I doubt it. In a week or two if nothing much is happening it can be nuked. It is not an important story, IMO, just a bit of human interest in a local paper. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **I had a look at the Google cache. I agree. Why people don't write about the ''real'' story of begging in general (for which there are undoubtedly lots of sources), and insist on focusing on the human interest stories, I don't know. Still, the link to ], if a laughable piece of original research, was interesting. My view on some of this is that there ''are'' some respectable articles that could be written, but they would not be Misplaced Pages articles, but original articles. ] is a good example of an article that consists of various odds and ends thrown together. The accumulated wisdom, opinions, and half-remembered thoughts of a few Misplaced Pages editors, plus some random legal stuff and "story" examples, along with a smattering of pictures. I might point that out to ], who has a theory on how articles like this are written ("not very well" is the short answer). ] 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Maybe Uncle G will do one of his rewrites. But yes, "not very well" describes it quite neatly I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Guy, I noticed that you'd blocked Nikola Smolenski for revert warring on this article. jpgordon protected the article a few minutes earlier as an alternative to blocking but in the circumstances this now seems a bit redundant, since Nikola was the leading agent in the revert war. jpg's confirmed that he doesn't mind if another admin undoes the block. Would you mind doing the honours? -- ] 21:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Unblock or unprotect, either is good. Whatever you think will work better for the article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unprotecting is better. Unblocking Nikola wouldn't be appropriate in the circumstances. As you say, he needs to learn not to revert war. He's been causing problems on a range of articles, not just this one; it's a generic problem with his editing style. I can't act myself because the version of the article that editors are fighting over is one that I wrote last month (i.e. I'm too close to the action), hence my earlier request that you do the unprotection. -- ] 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have now unblocked Nikola as per the request on unblock-en-l. The conditions are outlined and basically prohibit him or her from editing any article, though allowing the user to respond to a mediation case and to contact you here for clarification about the block. In other words, a very limited unblock, though these conditions expire in 24 hours (when your original block would have done). If you believe this is inappropriate, please yell and scream at me. If you find Nikola violating these conditions, an immediate reblock would of course be appropriate. I will monitor the contributions as well. --] 19:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to learn? Your insolence has no limits. | |||
| :JgZ, I hope you will realize that you were wrong when you blocked me. The edit war was not started by me, but by ], who is currently subject of an arbitration, and in any way, I reverted as many times as him but I don't see you blocking him. | |||
| :You wrote that I was "edit warring over a copyright-violating and in any case completely unreliable website, continuing immediately after expiry of a block for doing the same thing": that is simply not true. The previous block by Chris was because of me restoring link to a website mirror on that site (which is technically a copyright violation, but acceptable per Misplaced Pages policies). If you bothered even to click on it, you would see that the link on Gazimestan speech is not a copyright violation. For much more details you may see ]. | |||
| :I am on Misplaced Pages far longer than you, oftenly worked on sensitive topics like this one, and have never been blocked. I hope that you will apologize to me because of this. ] 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's how to avoid being blocked for edit warring: don't edit war. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Damug Warfang == | |||
| Hey; I saw that you had previously deleted a page for Damug Warfang, a villain in the ] series of books. I'd like to recreate this article as part of ], but I wanted to check to see why exactly you had deleted the last incarnation to avoid making the same mistakes. I will take special precautions to make this article consistent with articles for other Redwall characters. Thanks. ] 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Al Gore III == | |||
| While I understand your frustration with the page, there is, at the top of the talk page a slew of AfDs, several of which suggested a redir to ], and none of which was chosen as the option for that page. This was very ] of you, but it also overrides consensus and essentially deletes a page that has survived several AfDs against the consensus. Please undo your blanking and redir of the page. --] 19:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Policy vs. "consensus". <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Oh? What, precisely, is the policy violation? '''Inconvenient facts?''' ] 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **There is no policy violation. We have a growing conspiracy to whitewash an article with notable material. This concern needs to move to the next level of administrative review, and pronto. ] 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Guy: ignoring the above, who both seem to have agendas, I'd like to know what policy you believe was violated, as you haven't said anything about redirecting in order to adhere to a policy. You said it was just 'ridiculous', and you did so, despite precedence to these articles (and hell, we have an entire category ], so notoriety by beng related to the president counts, and Gore was a pretty notable Veep). There was also clear consensus by virtue of the AfDs; it got kept 5 times. This isn't a small change, it's a major one, instituted in a rather sloppy way (as evidenced by the not changing the page you were redirected to, which specifically says, 'If you're looking for his son go here'). I'm asking you to revert your edit yourself before I need to take this higher. Even if there are a lot of reasons for what you did, you can surely see that the implementation of it was hasty and against policies. --] 20:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * ] and ] tabloid journalism. This person has, thus far, done precisely nothing of note, other than get busted. He is a private individual, not a public person. His father is a public person, but that does not - ''absolutely'' does not - remove any right to privacy of his family. If the son chooses to go on a media offensive or something then that's different, but for now this is "teen busted, pictures at eleven". A great big no big deal. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Actually, he's a 25-year-old man, who seems to have been arrested driving one of his father's vehicles, and none of this actually addresses the issues of deleting by redirect. We're not talking about a page that came to exist yesterday; it's been around for near to 4 years, survived many attempts to delete, and it wasn't correct to override. --] 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* He's also an online media publisher. ] 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| Could you have a look at the link ] added in the "see also" section of the article on ], the oldest known supercontinent? The link is to "]" and the he gave in the talk page... Well, I do not know what to say. I certainly do not want to go into a revert war (I already deleted the link twice and that's enough for me). However, I remember you do have a view on mixing science and funny ideas (to use an euphemism), so I would like to learn your opinion on whether we should let it stay. Thanks in advance. --] 20:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| As the article cites McMenamin as its authority on Rodinia and McMenamin cites Urantia as the original source of the discovery of Rodinia | |||
| the ] reference certainly deserves a link in the article about Rodinia. | |||
| ".....one wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the | |||
| link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, | |||
| 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any | |||
| inkling that Rodinia existed. The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently | |||
| possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of | |||
| Wegener’s ideas on continental drift. Perhaps he or she was, or had contact with, an expatriate from Nazi | |||
| Germany. Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship | |||
| between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful | |||
| way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal | |||
| constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176) " | |||
| At this time I am only providing the link between Rodinia and Urantia. Subsequently, I will develop the article | |||
| to incorporate more between McMenamin and his Urantia discoveries of Rodinia.] 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Al Gore III (2) == | |||
| I noticed that you redirected the Al Gore III page, thus non officially deleting it. Can you please remove the redirect. I explained the reasoning on ]. Thanxs and have fun editing. <font style="font-family:Cooper Black;">] ]</font> 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Excuse me but what you did was ''extremely bad form'' and an abuse of admin privileges, especially since you contributed absolutely zilch to the ongoing discussion. Instead you acted unilaterally to in effect remove an article. Do your homework. Al Gore, III is no less notable than the Bush daughters, or even his own sister Karenna. Yet they have their own pages. Moreover, the man is an associate publisher of an online magazine. That alone would qualify as notable. ] 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Yeah, right. If you're involved it's an abuse because you're involved, if you're not it's an abuse because you're not. I've yet to see any evidence of what this guy is notable ''for'', other than (largely politically-motivated) tabloid crap. ] tabloid journalism. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What are you talking about? Involved in what? Tell me what ] is notable for. She has an article and, front and center, there's the section about her drug arrest. Then there's ], who's only claim to fame is to have been the ''grandson'' of senator/failed presidential candidate. That's certainly less notable than the son of a senator/failed presidential candidate.] 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: See ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] ] 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I've closed the review because it's in the wrong forum. The dispute over whether the article should be a redirect should be resolved on the talk page in the first instance, and following other appropriate steps in ], our dispute resolution process, if this fails to achieve consensus. --] 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::In light of the above, I have opened an RfC on the article's talk page, ]. Your participation is welcome. Cheers! ] ] 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion of talk pages with deletion discussion == | |||
| Following on from the discussion above about ], I see that deletion discussion is taking place at ]. I don't want to be too pedantic, but one of the reasons that deletion discussions take place at AfDs or DRVs is so that a record remains of why something was deleted. Indeed, that is the reasoning behind part of the G8 criteria for speedy deletion: "Talk pages whose corresponding article does not exist, unless It contains deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere". What are your views on preserving deletion discussion that occurs on talk pages? I think that in cases where discussion refers to sensitive material, e-mail should be used, and if people want to reduce the visibility of discussion debates than blanking the discussion is sufficient. Deletion of discussion really does confuse people later if they are trying to find out what happened. ] 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Don't be pedantic, then. If you were being pedantic, it is not a deletion, after all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Sometimes pedantry is good. I was hoping for more than that. Let me try again. If there is deletion discussion on a talk page, should that talk page be deleted? This is not a leading question, but an attempt to preserve relevant discussion. I mentioned either at the BDJ arbitration case or at WT:BLP, that admins deleting an article should take more care over talk pages. In particular, if a deletion ends up at DRV, it is a waste of time to repeat discussion that may have already taken place on the talk page. I see you recognise this by deleting pages but leaving the talk page as a venue for discussion. Where then should that discussion be preserved? A long, long time ago, deletion discussions took place on article talk pages. Then a separate venue (VfD) was set up. At least I think that was how it worked. VfD eventually became AfD. We keep AfDs as a record of what happened. If deletion discussions are going to take place on article talk pages, then, if the conclusion is to keep something deleted, that discussion should be moved to an archive somewhere. You simply move the page, and then delete the redirect that is left behind. The same thing ''should'' happen with redirects. When I redirect a page that has a talk page, I try to ensure that the talk page discussion is not lost, and is either moved, merged, or linked to, from a relevant place, usually the talk page of where the redirect is pointing. ] 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:26, 6 July 2007
 | |
| Misplaced Pages ads | file info – show another – #212 |
 | Guy is away. He will be back. Probably. |
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Jan-2025. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end. |
Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me
If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.
Terms of Service
By posting on this page you accept the JzG Terms of Service. I endeavour to satisfy good-faith requests to the best of my ability, but if you act like a dick, I will call you a dick. If you act like a troll, I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off. If you want something from me, your best bet is not to demand it on pain of shopping me to ArbCom, because that way is pretty much guaranteed to piss me off to the extent that I will do whatever I can to thwart your plans. This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. I can be provoked, it's not even terribly difficult. You may find, if you provoke me enough, that I will do something I later regret. Only remember, you may regret it more. I am a middle-aged surly bastard who spends his working day wrestling spammers and beating Windows with a stick, but I am capable of seeing good in the most improbable people if they don't go out of their way to make me do otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This user posts using a British sense of humour and does not repress those instantaneous motions of merriment.