Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:38, 31 October 2007

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Voluntary RfAs after resignation Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed? For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

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

• Archived talk page comments: /Archive
  Closed topics are archived to approx. June 30 2007.

Misplaced Pages IRC channel:

Services Link:

Others: society -- religion -- studies -- research -- ap -- asa -- terminology -- emo -- med

RFPC draft

A/guide: WP:SIR, Misplaced Pages:Canvassing Contribs tool: RfA list: {{Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report}}

NPOV Cite

"Misplaced Pages does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Misplaced Pages is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Misplaced Pages's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." user:Jdavidb

Thanks...

...for closing out the Shane Hagadorn AfD, things did get rather complicted and at least three or four SPA-type accounts have been spamming the Pro-Wrestling AfD debates hoping to keep pages which should have been deleted at the PROD stage. And that one got especially tangled, thanks for sorting it out. Darrenhusted 22:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

The lengthy explanation at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/This Is The Life (album) was a good thing and you deserve a bit of recognition for making a tough decision. Even though my recommended course of action (weak keep) was not what occurred, I applaud your work. — Scientizzle 07:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. People put a lot of effort, and often invest a chunk of their "feel good", into new articles. When a new article's created in good faith, it seems wrong to delete or keep it without leaving those involved a good rationale why that decision was made. I would want that too if it was an AFD I cared about.

Other good reasons come to mind: a good explanation also helps clarify to editors what was missing in an article or AFD post and how policies work in practice, and hence encourages clearer thinking - always a good thing :) Administrators are just as answerable to policy and neutrality as any other editor, and their decisions should be able to withstand fair scrutiny. Last, a good explanation reduces antagonism and bad faith wikistress, by making clear why. FT2 08:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Email account

Sure. Done. ॐ Metta Bubble 11:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I followed the linked and validated it yesterday. Perhaps give it another day. ॐ Metta Bubble 08:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I can email. What makes you think it isn't validated? ॐ Metta Bubble 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fixed. Try now. ॐ Metta Bubble 09:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Send what you like. ॐ Metta Bubble 08:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Silent Hill influences and trivia (2nd nomination)

Just to inform you I reverted your change of template here, per the instructions on the template. You started the close preceedings over an hour ago, and left them incomplete. DarkSaber2k 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

:)

Viridae 00:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Animal communication

Oh, you are quite correct. I meant to go into more detail on the talk page once I was done with my current to-do, but forgot all about it. I'll be going to go fetch my references and go explain why I removed the paragraph on the talk page sometime later tonight. — Coren  00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy AfD explanations

Although I think your long AfD explanations are generally good (from what I've seen), the Silent Hill one seemed awfully long... do you think that much explanation was really necessary? Andre (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shane Hagadorn. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--Oakshade 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for third opinion (moved from user page)

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria or History of Northeast China to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved by Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) from user page at 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC). Originally written by Cydevil38

Silent Hill influences and trivia

Hi FT2, per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Silent Hill influences and trivia (2nd nomination), this article is ready for deletion. I've moved over everything that had a direct reference, the rest is original research and/or mind-numbing trivia. Thanks, Marašmusïne_Talk 07:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence size

Hi FT2. Your evidence in the Attachment Therapy request for arbitration is 3000+ words according to my word processor. Please trim it to at most 1500, and better yet 1000, to comply with the 1000 word limit for evidence. Thank you. Picaroon (Talk) 18:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Away

Away from Thurs 12 - Sun 15 July. Any matters needing attention will be seen on return FT2 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Psycho: Music from the Controversial Motion Picture

FT2: I closed the AfD as a Keep based on both consensus and the issue regarding the Huey Lewis controversy. I was able to easily find sourcing for this issue (see here and here) which is clearly non-trivial and from reliable sources. This would satisfy the letter of WP:N. Sadly, neither WP:MUSIC nor WPP:MUSIC deal specifically with criteria for the notability of compliation albums, and WP:MUSTARD states only that albums should only be judged on a "case-by-case basis". Without anything else to guide us here, it'd default back to WP:N, which seems satisfied.

My biggest error here was assuming that the !voting editors were going to add the sources for the Huey Lewis bit. I will do so right now. If you still feel that this should be addressed by WP:DRV, by all means bring it up there. I hope, however, this has cleared things up.

Let me know if you have any other concerns. Cheers, Caknuck 04:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me preface everything by saying that you've made several valid points. I have no emotional investment in the article, and could care less whether or not it was merged with the main article for the film. I just want to make it known that I wasn't being cavalier about closing out the AfD, and that some careful thought went into it. That being said...

The dispute's notability has been established by two things:

1. It was covered by mainstream media like Rolling Stone and Salon.
2. The misconception that Lewis pulled the song because of the film's violent content still persists. Take the AMG review, which still reads: "Just before the disc's release, Huey Lewis demanded that his "Hip to Be Square" be pulled from the album -- he was offended by the film's subject matter."

As far as the album's article, I think it could probably stand on its own with some expansion. (And as general tendencies go, I'm a deletionist...) For instance, there are remixes of several notable songs -- most importantly "In The Air Tonight" -- which may not appear elsewhere. (I'll need to do some digging to verify this.)

Again, I have no objection to you either initiating an article merge or forwarding this to WP:DRV. Please let me know if you do. Thanks, Caknuck 05:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Coaching

Hi,

I'm glad to see you are interested in developing your wiki-knowhow by seeing admin coaching. Without any prior judgement whether you are ready or not to seek others views on adminship, it is always good to see others aiming to improve themselves. If you are looking for occasional hints and tips on your editing, I would be glad to give you some to-the-point feedback and pointers, and a helping hand for a while.

(Of course what you do with them, and how others view your work, will ultimately be down to you!)

If you're interested, you'll want as a first step to set yourself up with an email account, and then let me know. FT2 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey FT2 thanks for the offer. I always appreciate input on my editing and would gladly welcome any and all help in this venue. With regards to applying for adminship, I’m torn between two views. The first, is that I feel I could contribute more on the basic clean-up duties and in some circumstances “Dispute Resolution”. However, the Responsibilities associated with the privileges of adminship is also a burden that effects what I enjoy the most about Misplaced Pages the ability to just edit. So, will see. In the mean time, please feel free to offer any advice. It will be appreciated. Have a great day. .ShoesssS

Ps…in the mean time I did take your advice and activated my email. .ShoesssS

Email

Hi FT2. I've created an email to receive messages as you requested, but I haven't received anything from you beyond "hello" so I'm a little confused. I assume you're pretty busy. Anyway, post a message on my talk page when you have sent me something. I don't check that account usually. ॐ Metta Bubble 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my reply here in case there was more to add, but I don't particularly want to make my e-mail address available to anyone on wikipedia, was there a particular reason for asking me to do so? DarkSaber2k 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(Replied on my talk page) DarkSaber2k 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Reason for discussion:

I'm looking at your edit history, and considering nominating you for adminship. There are many strikingly good points, not least a suitably wide range of experience and competent involvement in various areas, and a strongly policy-oriented approach to editing. Misplaced Pages policy suggests that editors should edit as administrators, rather than create an artificial divide; I see evidence of that in your editing history too.

The one slight issue I've seen so far is a tendency to be a little too abrupt in language use with the few editors who just don't get the point. However, I've checked, and your conduct in the actual discussions doesn't seem abusive; backing this, the couple of complaints raised by others that I have found, were in fact related to quite civil and policy-based discussion. Doubtless if RfA was proposed, this side would be inspected in more depth, which could go either way. (Or, obviously, if it ceased to be present then it would cease to be an issue too.) I don't know if there are other issues, but if so, I didn't notice them in the review I undertook.

If you would like to discuss this, either here or via email, you have access to both. FT2 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Life line

Life line, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Life line satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Life line and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Life line during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eliz81 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Life line

That's so weird, since I use TWINKLE for xfd... thanks for letting me know, I'll put the template in manually! Eliz81 23:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not Iterator2n

Why did you think I was? --Jonathan Stray 03:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Nice to meet you. I have always had a serious interest in Misplaced Pages and more recently in its community too, as I am in the process of research for what I hope will someday be a popular book on popular epistemology, i.e. how people can decide if claims or ideas are true or not. --Jonathan Stray 03:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, that was sort of the idea. Aside from having a personal interest in psychotherapy, I chose to get involved in NLP because I wanted to understand how finding consensus might work in really contentious rational skepticism style cases. I'm also volunteering to mediate Food irradiation for that reason ;) --Jonathan Stray 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

There's an update: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re:_AWeidman.2C_RalphLender.2C_DPeterson.2C_JohnsenRon.2C_SamDavidson.2C_MarkWood.2C_JonesRD_-_admin_self-check Jayjg 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It Was Only Created For... in WP:ATA

Hi there, you added this section to WP:ATA. I'm wonder if you would mind if it was merged with WP:RUBBISH - they seem to have the same intended spirit and it would help cut down an increasingly long essay. Thanks -Halo 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Deathrash

That really depends upon how one goes about gettign a page salted? Will it require a new AfD or can it be done through speedy? Thankyou for the notice. -- Jimmi Hugh 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what you are talking about?

Morton Brilliant in Georgia state (regional) politics was a completely separate issue from the congressional staffers in Washington, D.C. I also took out your statement that implied that any congressional staffers were fired. And a suggestion: this list of controversies should probably just provide careful one-liners that exist primarily just to refer to the corresponding Misplaced Pages article and no footnotes: if footnotes are useful, then they belong back in their corresponding article.--76.203.48.177 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant definitely did resign, with Cox announcing it publicly because she had made a public stand against negative campaigning. We do not know if anyone got fired in the congressional staffer incident(s). They both fall under the category of "politics and Misplaced Pages", but they are separate incidents.--76.203.48.177 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy/Email

Had a chance to look over your policy proposal, but since I was doing it in class, I didn't have much of a chance to comment. I will at some point soon, really. And I've enabled my email now =) ♠PMC♠ 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this

I wrote this response before you removed the section, so I might as well put it somewhere.

In response to this:

(ec)I consider a self published source only acceptable to verify non-controversial claims, such as those that don't need to be cited anyways. The verifiability content applies to articles only, not discussions. Referring to existing debates on Misplaced Pages to make a point in a discussion is fine, but Misplaced Pages should never refer to itself as a source in articles. Until(1 == 2) 01:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your query

Hi FT, I see you removed your query from V. I had already answered it and got an edit conflict, so I'll post it here in case it's helpful.

There are two main issues: reliability and notability. With the NPOV example you give above, the Misplaced Pages policy page would be regarded as a (probably self-published) primary source, and it's fine to use primary sources so long as you stick only to describing what they say, without analysis. So you could use the NPOV policy as a source in an article about Misplaced Pages. But you then have to ask yourself why you can't find a secondary source. If no reliable secondary source has seen fit to mention the NPOV policy, is it something we should bother mentioning? That's where the issue of notability kicks in. It's always better to use secondary sources, because then we know that what we're writing about is something other people have expressed views on too, and not simply something we personally find interesting — which can lead to original research when we pick and choose primary sources we happen to like, rather than the ones secondary sources have written about.

Does this help to answer your question? SlimVirgin 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes to WP:BAN

Greetings. Excellent attitude of boldness! However, I have restored an earlier version of the policy, I want to discuss the changes you made before they become policy. The changes are still in the history and can be restored, if consensus is achieved. I have commented at WT:BAN. Cheers! Navou 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on my talk page

were these offered as an administrator? DPeterson 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I received some information that I felt worthy of posting on the Admin Notice Board regarding your conduct. Pls see that page. DPeterson 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• The thread is (here). Peace.Lsi john 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson Block

DPeterson was blocked for that edit at 18.19. RalphLender reinserted the identical passage at 18.43. Fainites 19:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Was already editing on that one too. But it'll have to wait a bit. I have an appointment for an hour. FT2 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! Real Life? Fainites 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, thanks, but I had already spotted that, and only noticed your message when I went to check Ralph's block log to determine if he had been blocked previously for similar grounds. FT2 19:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AT

Here at 22.24 and here at 2.04, reinserting the same or similar edit on ACT. Here at 2.07stating restoring material that was added with sources and verificable citations. No material had been deleted; only added to improve article in the edit summary when in fact a sentence and two substantial passages were deleted.Fainites 05:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him to edit in compliance with policy, once more, already. FT2 11:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

New threads

please dont start a new thread on a talk page (HoW) when a thread has been opened on the same issue as the last comment, its disrespectful to my thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Its on the history of wikipedia talk page . I made a thread about it right above yours, perhaps you didnt see me? SqueakBox 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, and yes we do have a disagreement that has nothing to do with this so lets keep discussing, SqueakBox 23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, wanted to thank you for your help, it is appreciated and thanks for letting me know your edit summary that was helpful to. I will go have a look at what you have suggested and keep at it. I had a look at a related afd and decided it really should be kept just improved as many student uni branchs have done a lot for out cause and many unis have a nus page. with love Delighted eyes 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks from me, too, for the connect and all your careful work.Jean Mercer 17:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was too quick - but I never hold deletions against people unless they're obvious vandals. Deb 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ze RfA

Thanks for the genuinely constructive comment on my RfA. Those are few and far between and, as far as I am concerned, the point of the exercise. I was sorta hoping more of the opposes would have visibly examined my contributions and commented on them; they turned out to be rather superficial (admitedly, many of the supports were just as superficial).

I'm going to be looking into the areas you have suggested. I didn't even know about WP:3O! I fear I'm never going to be much of a mainspace editor— but that will never prevent me from doing the less glamorous work.  :-) — Coren  02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for your copyedits in Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. I wonder if you may want to take a look at Biopsychiatry controversy? —Cesar Tort 14:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ok, the problem is that I am going on a long trip this Friday and don't like much to wikiedit in internet cafes. I may be available today and Thursday but then I will take a wikibreak. —Cesar Tort 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If that seemed messy for you, you will really, really love this!:

Controversy about ADHD

—Cesar Tort 17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

HELP!

HELP! User:H has left Misplaced Pages and his talk page is bloked. Please unblock it! Temporarily (or permanently) join the Misplaced Pages Crisis Center and help us out!

Defender 911 (Leave a message!)

Comander of the Misplaced Pages Crisis Center.

16:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you please look?

Will you please look at Journalism scandals and my adding of Matt Sanchez Link as a scandal. Please read my notes in talk too. The article is not balanced. I do not want to get in trouble for 'warring' again. Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note - I have limited net connectivity from now until the end of this weekend (20-21 Aug). Messages left here will be responded to but this may take longer than usual. Thank you. FT2 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Journalistic scandals article

Thank you for your work on the article. I have been working on the 'list' article. There are two issues. The first one is that there is one non-USA section on Sky News. James Furlong What to do with it? The second issue is this. IMO an issue only becomes a 'scandal' when it is talked about by multiple MSM sources, and that can include Fox, if it got several coverages. Like Jayson Blair or James Frey (although he was a book writer, not news). If something is only discussed in The Nation and Daily Kos, or Human Events and the Hot Air Blog, its not a 'scandal', IMO. What do you think? IMO about half of the entries there aren't big enough to be called 'scandals'. Plus it needs Robert Novak and Judith Miller and a few more. •smedleyΔbutler• 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Puerto Ricans in NASA

I accept your logic behind the AfD and appreciate that you created User:Marine 69-71/Puerto Ricans in NASA, that was very nice of you and I thank you for that. I know that some of Misplaced Pages's Puerto Rican community may feel discourage about the outcome because of the pride, but I'll handle that. I will encourage them to look for an alternate soultion. As a matter of fact I myself have started writting articles about the more notable Puerto Rican scientists in NASA. Tony the Marine 19:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pleasant Ridge Chili

Although I weakly took the other side on the AfD, that was a solid, well-reasoned close. Not like you need validation with your body of edits, but keep up the great work. :) youngamerican (wtf?) 20:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASF

I replied here. You're welcome to remove the redirect link and delete the redirect page if you believe it's useless to have it. I don't however think it causes any harm to have those section redirects (there are several others in WP:NPOV alone), nor that the section is in need of rewriting, only that it is an important autonomous concept within NPOV and that a section redirect would help for quick reference when this particular principle ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves") is being ignored, as happens quite frequently I'm afraid. —AldeBaer 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied again. What did you mean we should do with that list you proposed (which I think is a good idea btw)? Should we extend the ASF section with it? —AldeBaer 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Default assumption

Commenting on your comments here.... In the case of anonymous IPs (who, according to Jimbo himself, do not have the same civil rights as registered users) the threshold for AGF should be set lower. Demand (on the talk page or in the edit summary) that each edit be accompanied by referenced documentation or those edits will by default assumed to be vandalism and reverted on sight. Quite simple and it works. -- Fyslee/talk 06:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Software spec

Thanks for the spec, hopefully I can have a beta working soon. Shadow1 (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pleasant Ridge Chili. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mind meal 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

La Martiniere

Thank you for your recent close of that TfD. I was most pleased with your measured approach to its close, and i think coming to the right conclusion. Cheers. Twenty Years 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can i prod the song template? because of the TfD. Twenty Years 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For such an excellent effort to resolve a difficult dispute and help everyone move on, I award you the barnstar of peace. Melsaran (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here here! Thanks!--Rambutan (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pleasant Ridge Chili

Since you are adamant about bringing up WP:NOT, without delving into which part of WP:NOT the article violated, I am asking you to explain your argument. WP:NOT provides all examples that have established a consensus, and you have not pointed to which part of the policy Pleasant Ridge Chili supposedly violated. A few administrators arguing to delete something without being backed by the very policy they cite is not consensus. So please carefully look over WP:NOT, find the area(s) my article violated, and then post that at the deletion review. "Indiscriminate collection of information" is a summary of the entire page, and also a subheading within. It is not, in and of itself, an argument for deletion unless an example from that policy is used to demonstrate just how an article is an indiscriminate collection of information. Surely you understand this? (Mind meal 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

(Note for archive and for own ref: query relates to an AFD "delete" closure for dubious notability; later taken to DRV and endorsed. FT2 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

La Martiniere

Cheers for all of your help with the template. The creator has said that if i can gain consesnsus on the talk page, he will agree to speedy them. Can you make a comment here when you get a chance. Cheers. Once again, thanks for all your help. Twenty Years 09:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I posted this article as a good article candidate; but noboby reviews it. Since I see that you have edited an article on treatments for diabetes; as well as many others in sciences and other topics I thought you may be willing to review it. Thanks in advance.If you want anything please answer me in my talk page--Garrondo 14:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan

And he's immediately back to jumping into raging disputes and targetting me directly: .

Please reconsider your unblock. Phil Sandifer 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I undid an anti-consensus BLP vio, and Phil immediately reverted it without explanation or dialogue. I'm leaving well alone now - Judd can deal with it himself.--Rambutan (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am reading and will comment in a bit. I have no opinion at this moment, having not read. But note that I do not wheel war. If there is a problem, I have stated I have no objections to appropriate action by others. FT2 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read it; it seems fair. Thanks for all your time.--Rambutan (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebay-purchased articles

I added some info about the ebay buyers at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Democrat4 paid to create articles in wikipedia for customers: A new MyWikiBiz? and didn't know if you could provide additional info from the article you deleted. The Kevin Eggan article dates jive with one of the purchases, but I don't have the dates for Gloria Irwin creation/edits to see if they corresponded with feedback dates and the similarity of the edits. Based on the buyers' other purchases (99 cent ebooks of links, chunks of content for online dating websites, etc.), it seemed like the articles written would also spammish. The Eggan article seemed out of place...almost like a sample or a "clip", which would make sense if the seller is a keyword factory (like an essay mill). Hope this an appropriate request, and thanks in advance either way...I like to get things noted as well, so adding any info to the notice board instead of talk pages might keep it all together. :) Flowanda | Talk 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

test

TonyBot Do: search|hello. |{{{3}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{5}}}

Yeah that will work as expected. However to execute it you would have to edit this page with an edit summary of "execute" (without the quotes). Dunno if that was part of your test, but if so it worked, sort of. :) You also used "add self" as the edit summary in adding your name to User:TonyBot/Users and the bot would ignore that, but I added you in anyway. I'm still working on what is more convenient from a usability point of view and it'll get better. --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Rambutan

Hi, FT2 - I noticed that you were involved with the unblock of Rambutan (talk · contribs), who I had my first interaction with a couple of days ago. I just now read your review in his talk archive...good job, by the way, I totally agreed with your analysis after looking into the history. However, it seems some of the problems that were highlighted before are still ongoing - I ran into this situation because I watch User talk:Blofeld of SPECTRE. Rambutan was making some deletion nominations of articles on Tibetan communities that Ernst was creating. I understand it was possibly an honest mistake, but Rambutan wouldn't withdraw the noms even after WP:OUTCOMES was pointed out to him. Ernst's response was somewhat prickly, but he attempted to mend fences, however, his good-faith messages have been removed with "reverting vandalism" edit summaries and messages that he's "blacklisted" so far as Rambutan is concerned. Ernst has now stepped away from the situation, which I think is a wise move.

Since you have experience with the user, I was hoping you might look at things, and offer advice on whether it's time to elevate this to an RfC or something similar, given the lengthy block log and ongoing issues. Regards - Videmus Omnia 15:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I leave it in your capable hands. Videmus Omnia 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I'm interested in this program and am asking you to be my coach if you're willing. I know I have a lot to improve on, but I think I could be a valuable addition. Momo Hemo 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Watership Down (film)

I've been keeping an eye on this tonight; you've certainly put a lot of work in there! The new version is definitely a significant improvement. Loganberry (Talk) 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Labrador retriever

I updated my response to your comments on this article quite some time ago, but I haven't seen a response to them, nor have I seen the issues addressed. The GA on hold click is ticking - if the issues aren't addressed by September 28, 2007, I will have no other choice than to fail the article. Dr. Cash 05:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivuac

Just a heads up - I unblocked him (her?) - the discussion on the talk page is not overly contentious, and as far as I can tell the user did not even violate 3RR so it seems to me that a block is uncalled for at this time. If s/he violates 3RR, block - and if it happens two or three times then a week's block or longer may be justified. But the edits in question do not change the policy, and there hasn't been a revert war. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on your talk page. But the unblock is respected. FT2 14:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. to be clear; I am not supporting the actual edits. With respect, you have been vague about how he is violating his probation. I realize some editors want him blocked, but personally that to me is just not enough to justify a block, no matter how much they disagree with his edits. To be clear: had he violated 3RR I would have supported your block. And if he does, or if he skirts it by reverting three times a day for more than one day - well, I would consider that disruptive editing. I just didn't see anything like that. I respect your views too - you iknow that - and i only unblocked because in this case I thought you were being overzealous. If you think I am wrong please just spell it out for me. thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page FT2 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I brought up 3RR because it seems to me to be the easiest rule to break and has the lowest threshold for a block. I think the accusation of disruptive editing requires a higher threshold to justivey a block. Frankly, I am worried that some editors just do not want to have to deal with him/her and this is a way of avoiding having to i.e. a sign of bad faith. I do not queswtion at all that this editor needs to cooperate more with other editors, but it has to be a two-way process. I don't think he/she is trying to be disruptive, I think at last in the edits I saw s/he was acting in good faith and other editors seemed not to want to discuss it. Also, if someone makes an unpopular dit, and is reverted, and does not revert back, how much of a disruption is that? Can we agree to see how things unfold in the next 48 hours to see whether a one week block really is justified? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just left a stern warning on the user's page. Please let's just see what happens in the next 24 hours. If you still think I was wrong to unblock, block him, or tell me to and I will do it for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion being spread over your talk page, mine, and his, doesn't help. Let's see what happens, and hope it's best for him either way. The other risk is that if he doesn't rapidly understand that his best course is to just edit constructively on topics, and not vent, the next person might go directly to indef block/ban instead. FT2 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

current RfAs template

I replied on the Helpdesk, but I'm replying here too. Is this the one? {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} — Timotab 03:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just to let you know that I have filed an RfC on Phil Sandifer; it concerns his disputes with you. It's worth reading it.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be very clear, and re-read if needed. As best I can tell at this point, Phil doesn't have a "dispute" with me nor I with him. I have reverted one of his blocks and explained why, and declined to agree with another. Please do not put a dispute you have, or an RFC you raise, in any way as being "my" dispute unless I have engaged in it very significantly, and on one specific "side". It would be something I'd like you not to do. FT2 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your email :-) Just for the public record, he disputed your unblock of me, and the RfC process includes criticism of "all involved editors". Your are on the periphery of the dispute, and I thought it would be polite to notify you.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 09:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :) FT2 10:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the RfC in question has been deleted, with the nominator withdrawing it over concerns that Phil Sandifer "has lots of friends" and "will do anything to win." I'm not passing on the truthfulness of any of that, but I worry that, much as when a user wants to delete his own work for bad cause (rather than good cause), I think this RfC shouldn't be deleted because of the filer's felling of intimidation, whether warranted or not. I wanted to contribute my thoughts. Here is the outsider's view I was working on. It is essentially complete in the arguments made about Sandifer, but I still need to work on the section about the other(s) involved in this situation, as well as take the time to find supporting diffs & links. --Ssbohio 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's RFA

That's a very thoughtful and convincing reasoning you gave there. But as you said "Please let me know if there are points I am unaware of", maybe you would be interested in reading this; it explains why a 'need for the tools' isn't really a requirement for adminship. Just a thought :) Melsaran (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was the last editor on that essay page, a few days ago. The comment you're seeing, an afterthought to the more serious concerns, is at the end of my post; it's the last one, not the main one.

What I think WP:AAAD is trying to get at is this: if you have a good editor, who checks the boxes however they need checking, but isn't active in adminship areas or particularly planning to be, that's not really a good reason to say no. They already have proven activity and trust, so the assumption is unless there's evidence to the contrary, they will continue to do so. Its examples are likewise focussed on editors who are active in some areas, not others. The concern would be risk of misuse, and a candidate with a good track record comes to RFA with reassuring evidence not to worry. In this RfA that's not evidenced. Adminship is not sought on the back of a solid and reassuring recent record with likely use for the project's benefit if ever used. If all else was fine, I'd note the non-need and decide if it's an issue or not -- bear in mind AAAD is not set in stone, it needs judgement how much it applies in given cases. However given the other concerns, the fact that in addition not even a substantial reason is evidenced... it is worth noting. It's not the most important point, and alone as a 'reason' carries little or no weight, but as a side observation in the context, seems worth noting.

Hope that helps! FT2 17:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are valid reasons to oppose a candidate because they haven't been active at all as of late, or because they clearly need more experience, because then you cannot be sure that the candidate has enough knowledge of our policies and the way things work and that they will use sound judgement in their decisions. However, we should generally grant adminship to anyone who can be trusted with the tools, even when they won't use them that often. Your comment said something like "this user doesn't need the tools so why should we grant them?", so I thought you meant that we should deny adminship to someone who won't use his tools but can be trusted with them nonetheless. May have been a misunderstanding on my part :) Melsaran (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rescue template

Greetings, thankyou for your assitance and words of wisdom on Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_24#Template:Rescue. Although personally I believe it should be left on the article pages, I have worked on a new template to be placed on the AfD page as you suggested. Please view the template here, and it in action here. If I could ask you to place your comments on the template here to keep it all in one place? Thankyou for your time. Fosnez 11:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just regarding the usage on article pages, and I'm sorry if I am harping on about it, but I can understand your position on because of it being a project tag that it can't be used on article pages. Here is an example of it being used well, and here is one of it not (far to many tags on that page, interestingly Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace seems to suggest all the cleanup tags should be on the talk page as well?). My question is, if it were to become an "official" wikipedia tag, that is "owned" by the community, but "served" but the ARS, could we continue to place it, in a rewitten form, on the article page. I know this next statement might sound self serving, but having it on the article page is where the ARS got most of it's members from (from them noticing it on the article page, it's certainly how I found out about them) and having more people fixing articles can never be a bad thing IMHO. I am not the only one that feel like this and as I said before, as this is only to be placed on articles that are up for deletion in five days anyway, where is the harm? - Fosnez 12:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I think you've slightly got the wrong idea, though I can see where you're coming from. I closed the TFD on the basis not of my own opinion, but on the basis that both policy, practice, and around 2/3 of the discussion's participants who expressed a view, all concurred that the article was the wrong place for it. The participants all saw the reasoning you have given, but even so that was the view, and it's fairly well supported by existing communal agreement too.

There's no real difference between an "official" and "unofficial" tag. It's mostly down to how widely adopted it becomes. If many people use it, it will gradually become seen as a part of how things work. If not it'll be seen as a tag used by a small group trying to do their own bit to help. Either way the same policies would probably apply. The point is, most people who'd research to improve an article would likely click through on the AFD header anyway. The people you're hoping to reach are the ones who might express a view, and therefore care enough to perhaps improve it. I have made one other suggestion on the project talk page which I see no problem with, but you'd need to get the agreement of the folks at AFD since it would involve minor editing to the AFD template.

If you want, then the way to present it is not as a quirky project or a "we need it". Project templates are much more based on what helps to encourage good process and conduct and thus benefit the encyclopedia. So what matters is much more that there is a legitimate case following the TFD, that this is what deletion policy says, but it's often not clear to readers of the AFD template. If it were able to be noted in the existing template that improvement is sought, perhaps more editors would be interested in doing so.

I don't know how it'd be received, but that's my thoughts for the few minutes I'm around.

Hope this helps! FT2 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Radionics

Please kindly observe that the definition in the lead of the article doesn't match the definition given at the citation's source. The definition previously changed by user jennylen was a direct citation of the same source fully matching. Also, empty sections or subsections seem to be unnecessary, they could be created when there is some content there but at this time would be logic to delete the empty sections. (I have no opinion on the article itself but I was verifying its sources when the edit war started). ℒibrarian2 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind and most complete explanation. ℒibrarian2 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of that article, have you noticed the latest message from jennylen at the talk page? can that editor make what he is doing? ℒibrarian2 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading your kind explanation of the introduction (I did like it and it is very instructive) I found a slight error which may produce some misunderstanding. Reading about it and consulting some people involved in that kind of practice, it appears that the so called "energy" is not sent from person to target but from a device to the target, the practicioner is not a healer but he operates an apparatus which is assumed to do the healing.

I don't know if I am enough clear, the matter is that the definition says "sent from person to person" and that is not the case, there is always an instrument used for sending such "energy" or "rate" tuned in the apparatus, the practicioner has no healing intervention whatsoever beyond to operate the instrument. The ESP connection they claim is related with the diagnostic side in which the operator is "sensible" to the reactions of the apparatus, however there is never a direct connection or "subtle" link between the practicioner and the target. I don't know if my explanation is clear, let me know ℒibrarian2 10:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion we're having to Talk:Radionics, and answered your comment there. Thanks! FT2 11:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I rather abstain from that kind of environment, I just wanted to assist in avoiding a possible inexactitude, I am good with whatever you see fit ℒibrarian2 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left an answer to your question at the discussion page of the article Radionics. Brad Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.191.101 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Infomration Request

I kinda figured that admins telling me someone's IP address was off limits. I guess I am just letting this guy get to me too much. This person has "followed" me from one site to another making constant rude and defamatory comments about me and the site I used to run. I have a good idea of who it is, but no proof, hence my request. If it keeps up, I will report them to AIV or ANI and let them handle it. I wish the two diffs in question could be deleted outright because they are completely false (I ran SVRTV.net and I think I would remember being sued) but that is for a totally different board. Thanks for your help though. Take Care....NeutralHomer 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lordosis image

Thanks for the note about removing the lordosis image. The thing is, while lordosis (excessive lordotic curve) can be a medical condition (like obesity), a lordotic curve is normal and need not be medically diagnosed. Some people just have more of a lordotic curve, and some people don't (commonly called flatback). So while an excessive lordotic curve is not just a medical condition, but also description of posture. Like saying someone is skinny, fat, short or tall, it doesn't have to be vetted by a doctor (although a nice peer-reviewed longitudinal study with normal distribution data would be helpful). It would seem to me that these things are considered common knowledge, and the photo describes this common understanding.

Now I agree that we shouldn't post undiagnosed photos of people without their permission, but since lordosis is not necessarily a medical condition, there need not be any privacy or medical problems. What do you think? Rhetth 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The points are fair ones, but you ask what I think... and what I think is, the perception and representation is that of a medical condition. The article will have a medical title, the photo will be captioned "person with lordosis" or similar rather than "person with pronounced curved lower spine", ... the perception presented and fact represented will be, "this is a photograph of a person with an abnormal medical condition". The term "lordosis" is not a common one, as best I'm aware.

Since it's discussed in the context of a medical-sounding article ("lordosis" rather than "spinal curvature") we have to take more care about how we represent it. Thats fair and commonsense. A clinincal looking photograph of pronounced curvature should not be too hard to source. But J. Random Person with a quarter face profile, in the everyday high street, labelled with a medical-sounding condition, and sourced from the context of a dubious blog, is not the best kind. We can probably do better.

What you might want to do is make more clear that lordosis is simply a medical term for a pronounced dcurvature of the back, rather than a medical problem.

Hope this helps! FT2 23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hey there. At my unsuccessful RfA, you were neutral suggesting that I get a little wider breadth of experience with admin processes. Before I try again, I wonder if you'd take a peek at my contributions of late? CSBot causes most of the traffic on my user talk, but you can still find the signal in the noise, I think. — Coren  14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. It's not what I wanted to hear, but that's also why I asked someone who didn't support my previous request.  :-) I don't think I'll ever get much mainspace-fu; this is just not where I feel I can contribute (beyond the occasional typo/format fix, maintenance tag or fresh reference). I guess I'll just wait until the weight of the rest of what I do distracts away from my non-mainspace-ness. — Coren  19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. I guess what I was asking is whether you think I currently have too little mainspace focus to, as you say, understand how it works? There is a fine line, I think, between contributing usefully and "making busywork" — the latter I find very much distasteful. So if you think I need the extra mainspace experience in order to be a good admin, I'll just pull up my sleeves and get to work. If I only need that extra experience to look like I'd be a good admin, I'd rather expend that effort doing something I'm actually good at and defend my position when the time comes. — Coren  19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Endal

I am Endal's owner Allen Parton and i am just contacting you to express my gratitude for all the work you have done on researching Endal and bringing his page in to line with the Misplaced Pages rules. Thank you so much for all your effort and time on this project

regards Allen Parton Endal and Allen 18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I noticed that your edits were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman 06:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with User:Anonimu

Hello

I encountered non viki-civilised user who seems to be specially interested in subject like fascism or communism. He reverts all my contributions and do not engage in discussion. From his talk page and links it is clear he was already banned at least once. Could you please help me starting some action to moderate him? He even removes my contributon to his talk page.

Cautious 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep going. You already produced enough NPAS to gurantee a block.Anonimu 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hope you engage in discusiion in the end. Cautious 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to fight about this, everyone. See the bottom thread on Cautious's talk page, as well as on Talk:Vasily Zarubin. Please read up on the three revert rule too, Anonimu and Cautious. *Cremepuff222* 22:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your post on Angel David's talkpage

That was wonderfully phrased. You should save it -- maybe even post it as a WP essay, if it isn't essentially duplicated by another one.--SarekOfVulcan 03:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom request post

Hi there. Just wanted to drop you a note to point out that you've mis-spelt a name on that ArbCom request post (the Sadi Carnot one). It's User:Wavesmikey, not "Wikismikey". I would have put the following at the ArbCom request page, but that is getting a bit long. In my view, the AfD of Wavesmikey's early efforts, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2, makes plain that the user should have been aware that this was unacceptable material. You also ask whether it would have been possible to find a "better way to keep the good and avoid the bad", but this ignores your earlier point where you ask "Are his good contribs really good?" and answer by saying "unclear as yet". I too think a topic ban would have been appropriate, but a detailed investigation of the contributions is also needed to identify which ones need clearing up. Carcharoth 15:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo fixed - thanks! Evidently too much wiki on the mind :) Also the other two addressed - the AFD's dated to 2005, they arent really evidence of more than "should have got a clue", which was the case anyway, I'd be reluctant to interpret a 2005 AFD as a "warning" for a 2007 case. The last of the 3 is clarification mainly (grammar) and fixed - thanks again! FT2 14:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: email

Replied. - Zeibura 09:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Hey FT2! I was puttering around the 'pedia and happened across your comments twice today. I was very impressed by the careful thought you put into your arguments. I hope this brightens your day. Cheers —Cronholm 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

The WP:NPA page is protected, due to edit-warring. On the talk page we worked out some text over several iterations and after days several editors agreed to it. Then you come up with a different format for the text and after minimal agreement went ahead and added your version to the protected page. I don't believe that is the best way to draft policy. I'd prefer, if you're going to edit a protected policy page, that you add the version that actually has the consensus. Or, even better, wait until the page has been unprotected and the consensus is mature. While we should move expeditiously, I don't think we should rush to a conclusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the clarification since it was being well received at WT:NPA by several editors including yourself, and it merely clarified existing words for certainty. As you rightly noted, it was a footnote only, and posted a note to say this was done.

Shortly after, I noticed the page was protected - since admins can edit through protection I hadn't realized this immediately. Page protection applies to all; as soon as I realized I'd edited a protected page, I self-reverted the footnote you mention in its entirety. The only change I left was a minor format change only - namely an italic of a clause that by then we had all agreed was the important one, to leave it more prominent. Not one letter of WP:NPA was altered. The protection was honored a fair while before you asked.

Apologies for this; hopefully by checking the record you will see I had fixed it myself already, removing the footnote an hour before the above note :)

FT2 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I've accidentally edited protected pages before too, so I know how that can slip through. I wouldn't have mentioned it except this has been a difficult process and I'm hoping we'll achieve an unquestioned consensus on the proposal. Thanks for your participation and help in that direction. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD closure of Anthony Chidiac

Thanks for providing a close to the discussion. It is clear from your closing comments that you spent time considering the discussion. I appreciate your doing that. I was afraid that the closing admin would give a one-line close statement... instead we get this! Thanks a lot for taking the time to spell it out. -- Ben 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)