Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:26, 10 April 2008

Archive

Note

Believe it or not, I appreciated your BLP concerns on Saeb Erekat - and I think it helped us reach a far less inflammatory version and far more encyclopedic than it would have been without your guidance.

Currently, there is a similar problem, but from the other direction, on Avigdor Liberman. I'd respectfully request your input on the issue.

Here is the start of the related talk: .

Cheers, Jaakobou 11:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This page still needs your attention. Jaakobou 14:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC) correcting typo 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I request you review the following edit summaries.

• "rm non-WP:RS and soapbox context." Nickhh, 20:41, 9 April 2008
• "All your sources are non-RS or misattributed." Nickhh, 20:49, 9 April 2008

With respect, Jaakobou 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. This should probably be connected with activity on Saeb Erekat.

• TalkPage: "The massacre claims were not "refuted"" Nickhh, 20:54, 14 February 2008
• TalkPage: "Nickhh, the massacre, grave digging, coverup, and obliteration of the entire camp from existence claims were indeed refuted. We have multiple high-quality sources within the article saying just that." (6 sources provided) Jaakobou 05:04, 15 February 2008
• "Remove whole controversy/criticism section" - Nickhh, 20:10, 6 April 2008

Cordially, Jaakobou 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Ryan, Koala06 hasn't edited since Feb 15. Since the other 2 fellows have agreed to the mediation, maybe he should be dropped? I don't know all the mediation comm rules, medcab is a much more freewheeling place. MBisanz 03:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ping" MBisanz 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:England

Are you sure you don't want to switch to {{Random portal component}}? Also, if you're online, can you give me a hand to create all those redlinks? Thanks; Qst (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally forgot about the portals. I've just had to do both Portal:England and Portal:Tennis. Could you take a look at them and let me know what you think? I'm fairly sure I've finished them for this month. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your signature

How in the would do you fit that in under 256 bytes???!! J.delanoy_adds 00:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at User:NikoSilver/Signature_shop - Niko worked wonders for me! I have to confess I have absolutely no skill with code. :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you hoping to accomplish with the username policy?

I've been working for months to change the username policy, which is a very prominent way that experienced Wikipedians bite newbies by blocking them immediately over a policy they have presumably never seen. I'm trying to fix the parts that result in blocks being placed on newbies who have done nothing to harm Misplaced Pages, particularly the bit about "confusing usernames".

We're both administrators, but you're seen on many areas of Misplaced Pages and have a very authoritative voice, so it is a large hindrance that you oppose me at every turn. Whenever I encounter a long-standing Misplaced Pages dispute like this, I find it important and useful to find out why the other side is doing the things they are doing.

My goal is to get fewer good-faith newbies blocked. What's your goal? From your arguments on the page, it seems to be to make history pages look less confusing. But that doesn't seem to be at all on the same level. It certainly doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that can trump WP:AGF and WP:BITE.

I consider experienced Wikipedians to be intelligent people. If they are confused, they can usually unconfuse themselves with no problems. I don't see much harm to the encyclopedia coming from an established user being confused for a few moments on a history page. But good-faith newbies who get blocked, with very few exceptions, are just gone.

Huzzah! One less newbie to annoy and (even worse) confuse the regulars!

Okay, okay, that last part was a bit of a sarcastic straw man. But what is the real reason why you so strongly defend the status quo of newbie-blocking?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although we generally disagree on the username policy, I certainly appreciate your thoughts at all times regarding the policy and I think it's good to have a few different opinions on it. If you could take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/holding pen, I've created a new proposal that I we are both happy with. I certainly agree that the WP:BITE concerns are serious and we should try and discuss wherever possible before blocking these usernames - but if they don't agree to change their username, a block should still be given. Anyway, take a look at my proposal and let me know your thoughts. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Avigdor Lieberman

Hi there. I think you showed poor judgment in condemning the "BLP nightmare," apparently without checking any sources on the man. If you just check the first paragraph or even the headline of any profile on Lieberman — NickNH has provided some — you'll find that the incidents we have under "controversy" are all quite notorious. Reliable sources in fact present this stuff as relevant to Lieberman's overall biography, showing that it is not WP:UNDUE weight at all. I'm 100% sure that this seemingly uninformed comment is going to encourage Jaakobou to go on another reverting spree. <eleland/talkedits> 12:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:party

Hi, err, party (talk · contribs) promised me "something special", proof, if I get 500 edits, but he was accused of being a sockpuppet, so he could not give me the "something special", can you give my something special on behalf of him. Thanks. – i123Pie _bio 22:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Motions

Overall the move looks good, but check the bottom of the new page, I think an actual RfAr got swept in with the rest of it? That should probably get moved back. --Elonka 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yeah it did - I'll sort that. Thanks Elonka. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Small request

Could you perchance just let my case kind of quietly slip through the cracks? Show us how great you Brits can be.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

hehe, unfortunately I'm not an arb so I can't do that - vote for me in December and I'll see what I can do ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a deal.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

Thank you, but I do not plan to do any harm to the encyclopedia. In fact, the first edit was me loosing my cool. Basketball110 _{pick away...} 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have been focusing on mainspace. I have been already been told that. I plan to have at least 2500+ quality mainspace edits out of 10,000+ edits before trying the RFA. Thanks anyway!--RyRy5 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MFD

Want to MFD this useless junk again? Misplaced Pages:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits? I'll full support deletion. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:Jéské Couriano

Dude. He doesn't want it. . I already offered. Pedro :  Chat  23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I saw, but it was getting stupid and it can easily be stopped. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's intense. I guess if Jeske is happy to take the flak then up to him. All power to his right arm. Got to love the admin bit at times.... :) Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While protection *can* stop it, they'll just go after other users. Protection in this case is worse than blocking. -Jéské 00:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Dear Ryan, I saw you are willing to take the mediation case for IZAK and I. I am very glad for this. Should I go about filing it with the MedCom or with you directly? Thank you very very much for your interest and desire to get involved. Bstone (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you file a case at WP:RFM and as soon as everyone accepts, we'll get it speedily accepted. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. FYI, I am on the road and flying around the country for the next 2 days so my apologies if I am a bit delayed. Bstone (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan and Bstone: In light of the rejection by the ArbCom of Bstone's recent RfA against me, and a similar rejection complaints at ANI by Bstone against me, it would be smart and indeed it would be the correct procedure that before yet another wasteful and wasted attack is undertaken by Bstone against me this time at RfM, that the still very wide open RfC initiated by Bstone at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 with its "proposed solutions" that was worked on and seen to by many editors very familair with the facts and issues involved, be brought to complete closure, obviating a lot of further time wasting. There is no point in creating confusion by keeping many editors including quite a few admins waiting to hear the end at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 only to have yet a new drama start up at RfM that will only repeat the same story. So let's be focused and not get forgetful that there is still unresolved business at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/IZAK2 that must be closed out first, and only then should one decide if the RfM should be pursued or not. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging

Seriously Calton, you've had numerous admins telling you to stop tagging every person you warn with {{temporary userpage}}. I'm now formally telling you to stop tagging user talk pages as such.

Wrong. I've had a couple of people -- apparently not understanding actual policy and actual practice -- complaining. Excess pages get deleted all the time, and if you have a problem with that, perhaps you ought to take it up with the admins who are doing the actual deleting. Actual evidence of actual policy and practice, please, instead of vague handwaving, vague worries, and vague threats, please. --Calton | Talk 14:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned Calton, simple as that. There is no policy saying you delete these pages, certainly not speedily and not all those you tag are going to be blocked. You've been asked to stop by about 5 different admins - I strongly suggest you do.

"Because I said so". VERY convincing rhetorical technique. Any updates on when you'll tell me 1) the actual reason not to tag them?; 2) the actual policy saving spammer pages for eternity?; 3) the actual problems and/or disruption caused by the tagging?; 4) the actual policy or policy interpretation I'm supposed to be violating?: 5) evidence that you've taken up your concerns with those who actually carry out the deletions, who are presumably actually causing whatever vaguely defined harm you're alleging? Hint: {{temporary userpage}} =/= "speedy deletion", no matter how you bend the meaning of words.

I'm well within policy and practice -- and definitely improving the encyclopedia -- and you need to provide even the slightest justification or reasoning why I'm not. Again, "Because I said so" is not a reason. --Calton | Talk 14:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You show me the part of the deletion policy that states that talk pages of news users are deleted... There isn't one. You are tagging pages of people that aren't even blocked, some are even very unlikely to be blocked. This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted. No more wikilawyering, just stop it. [

Wikilawyering? Now you're just being ridiculous. You avoided every single question -- including the one about the actual admins doing the actual deleting, so presumably causing ACTUAL harm by your lights -- and, having nothing to fall back on but vague handwaving and footstamping, you have to resort to crying "wikilawyering"?

This is disruptive because these talk pages shouldn't be deleted. - That's not so much wikilawyering as it is begging the question. Again, "Because I said so" is not a reason -- and, again, why are some admins regularly deleting such pages if they're not supposed to? Perhaps you should leave some vague threats on their user talk pages, too.

You are tagging pages of people that aren't even blocked, some are even very unlikely to be blocked. - That statement is, how do you say, true only on a technicality: I tag pages of people who are about to be blocked or should be -- pages that, if the blocking admin does their due diligence would leave a block notice -- with its built-in {{temporary userpage}} notice, and what were you claiming about such pages not being deleted? -- but frequently don't, so the pages would otherwise remain for eternity. Talk pages of spammers and creators of user pages disguised as spam, of whom few -- if any -- will return after their initial attempts fail. Would you care to point out all of these people who "are even very unlikely to be blocked"? Betcha can't dredge up more than a few, if any whatsoever: I, however, can fill this page with counter-examples.

But hey, let's read the text, like you wanted me to: This userpage has been identified as inactive and containing no versions requiring archiving. It will be deleted after a reasonable period of time. You show me the part that requires the archiving...there isn't any. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• This has come up at WP:AN. FYI. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP/AN

Since you've declined to provide any actual rationale to me other than vague threats, perhaps you feel up to providing something for the fine folks at WP:AN -- including why you're so militant about this to begin with. Actual reasons would help. --Calton | Talk 15:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies

"I hate this attitude that new users deserve to be bitten if the haven't read every policy and guideline." I bet the users who advocate this haven't read most of the policies and guidelines. Thanks for the support of newcomers. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)