| Revision as of 13:56, 9 September 2010 editWikid77 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users67,096 edits →Expanding MoMK: new topic, question← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:58, 9 September 2010 edit undoSoundvisions1 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers10,256 edits →Could you have a look: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| ==Expanding MoMK== | ==Expanding MoMK== | ||
| Hi. Wikid77 here. I am returning from a 3-month topic ban about ] (MoMK) and the deleted article "Amanda Knox" which I created. I would like to expand the MoMK article, but have met much resistance from a few editors at the talk-page. Should this be a new issue at ANI or should we try a mediation, etc.? Some editors have reduced the article to 1 phrase about each issue, but other editors removed some of those sparse phrases, and now, the article has become hollow. As you might know, Kercher and Knox, as exchange students, moved to a cottage in Perugia in September 2007, paying rent to the lead roommate Filomena (1 of 2 Italian women in their late 20s). However, the MoMK article fails to mention these issues. Knox, an honors student from Seattle, arrived after Kercher, who showed her around Perugia, walked to classes with her, went to clubs with her, as they became fast friends. After 5 weeks (25 October), they attended a classical music concert at the University for Foreigners, and when Meredith left at intermission, Knox met student Raffaele Sollecito, who looked like Harry Potter to her. They immediately started staying overnight at his house a few blocks away. On Halloween, Knox and Kercher phoned each other several times, talking about their costumes. The next day, Kercher left around 4pm for dinner with British friends, and Knox/Sollecito went to his house. The next morning, Knox went home, but found Meredith missing, but several blood drops in various rooms of the house. At 12:07pm, Knox called Kercher's phone for 16 seconds (it "rang and rang"), then at 12:08 called lead roommate Filomena to say there was some blood, and Filomena replied she was returning from the city's ] to the house ASAP. Knox then called Kercher's other phone, which went straight to voicemail. Postal police soon arrived, after a neighbor returned one of those discarded mobile phones into the station. At the house, a buddy of Filomena's boyfriend forced the door to Meredith's room, and they found the body wearing only T-shirts under a duvet on the floor, stabbed in the neck, with blood all around. A police search reported 300 euros (~$420) and 2 credit cards missing, and Kercher's house keys were never found. However, the MoMK article contains few of these crucial details: a search of MoMK will not match: "rent" or "September 2007" or "Potter" or "Festival" or "keys" etc. How should this be contested? Reply when you have time, no rush. -] (]) 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | Hi. Wikid77 here. I am returning from a 3-month topic ban about ] (MoMK) and the deleted article "Amanda Knox" which I created. I would like to expand the MoMK article, but have met much resistance from a few editors at the talk-page. Should this be a new issue at ANI or should we try a mediation, etc.? Some editors have reduced the article to 1 phrase about each issue, but other editors removed some of those sparse phrases, and now, the article has become hollow. As you might know, Kercher and Knox, as exchange students, moved to a cottage in Perugia in September 2007, paying rent to the lead roommate Filomena (1 of 2 Italian women in their late 20s). However, the MoMK article fails to mention these issues. Knox, an honors student from Seattle, arrived after Kercher, who showed her around Perugia, walked to classes with her, went to clubs with her, as they became fast friends. After 5 weeks (25 October), they attended a classical music concert at the University for Foreigners, and when Meredith left at intermission, Knox met student Raffaele Sollecito, who looked like Harry Potter to her. They immediately started staying overnight at his house a few blocks away. On Halloween, Knox and Kercher phoned each other several times, talking about their costumes. The next day, Kercher left around 4pm for dinner with British friends, and Knox/Sollecito went to his house. The next morning, Knox went home, but found Meredith missing, but several blood drops in various rooms of the house. At 12:07pm, Knox called Kercher's phone for 16 seconds (it "rang and rang"), then at 12:08 called lead roommate Filomena to say there was some blood, and Filomena replied she was returning from the city's ] to the house ASAP. Knox then called Kercher's other phone, which went straight to voicemail. Postal police soon arrived, after a neighbor returned one of those discarded mobile phones into the station. At the house, a buddy of Filomena's boyfriend forced the door to Meredith's room, and they found the body wearing only T-shirts under a duvet on the floor, stabbed in the neck, with blood all around. A police search reported 300 euros (~$420) and 2 credit cards missing, and Kercher's house keys were never found. However, the MoMK article contains few of these crucial details: a search of MoMK will not match: "rent" or "September 2007" or "Potter" or "Festival" or "keys" etc. How should this be contested? Reply when you have time, no rush. -] (]) 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Could you have a look == | |||
| I came across the ] article and it has mostly been edited by one editor. I tagged the article for a review and the editor removed it with a snarky comment (see ). While they state it was dealt with in 2009 a look at the articles edit history shows the the subject of the article was working on it and was ] on October 4, 2009. After that they no longer worked on the article directly. For the rest of 2009 the primary editor was ]. I see that on October 4, 2009 there were {{tl|NPOV}} and {{tl|COI}} tags placed on it and on October 17, 2009 ] stated on ] they knew the subject and were the main editor on the article. On June 26, 2010, all tags (At that point including an {{tl|Orphan}} and {{tl|cv}} tag) were removed by ], whose only edits at Misplaced Pages were to the article and to the article talk page giving the URL of their website, or I should say the subject of the articles page on their website. Since that date the editor has been ], outside on one other edits by ], a bot clean up for "links syntax and spacing" and my tagging for {{tl|pov-check}} and {{tl|COI}}. Over the life of this article I can't see where anybody other than someone close to the subject has removed tags, the few other editors who have come to the page seem to add the tags. To the best of my understanding these tags should not be removed by the subject of the article, a website owner who hosts the subject of the articles web page, or the main author of the article who admits they know the subject of the article. While there may not be a hard policy about these tags being removed it seems that any of the aforementioned removing a COI tag defeats the whole point of requesting neutrality, pov, and coi checks. I thought you could offer advice into what the next step should be. I think a ] concern, along with the admitted COI issue, is very valid at this point. I also think with the removal of my tags and their comment we have some ] going on. Their edit history shows that approximately 95% of their edits have been to mainspace, and all but 4 edits of that 95% have been to the ] article or talk page. I am open to suggestions, or if you see something as an admin that needs acting on right away feel free. Thanks. ] (]) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:58, 9 September 2010
 | Hello, and welcome to my talk page.
⇒ Start a new Talk topic. |
| Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Courtesy note
You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno 13:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yikes, not again. I find it quite tiring to discuss this topic, in large parts due to the discussion style of some of the discussants, not sure I'll show up there this time. Thanks for the note though.
Amalthea 10:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)- Can't say I blame you. Cheers, –xeno 13:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
With new school year, seeing how Utilitarianism works off auto-confirm?
Esp. with the new college year, it might be worth it seeing how Utilitarianism works without auto-confirm. I emphasize 'might.' It definitely would be an experiment. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- I only converted the protection to use the pending changes trial and did not originally flag it as protected, so I don't really have an opinion on it. From a glance it looks like most IP edits still get reverted, so it may be a very good use for that protection level. If you want to try it out feel free to ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP.
Cheers, Amalthea 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
July MOTD deletions
July July give me your answer too. I'm half crazy all for the disappearence of you.
Btw, a very bad alteration of Daisy Daisy. Simply south (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- July's gone (in more than one way). Half crazy myself after the last weeks, but the end of the tunnel should be around the next bend … Amalthea 09:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Ta. Posting from my phone apologies if it screws something up.→ROUX ₪ 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- No problemo. Amalthea 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
ACC Tool
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. FunPika 10:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- FunPika forgot to modify his somewhat standard message to say that he also gave you admin access pending Stwalkerster upgrading you CU access (which is pretty much a certainty :P ). There are not too many requests that get deferred to CU though it is nice to know there are now 3 who can review them when they do come in. Feel free to join in on the standard requests if you want to. Welcome :D delirious & lost ☯ 12:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I figured, thanks. :) Will try to monitor the CU queue, that's why I registered with the tool. Cheers, Amalthea 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Chin Ho Kelly
I see you blocked this user--I'm guessing as a sock. Another new user has restored some of User:Chin Ho Kelly's edits here. I'm wondering if it's the same editor? freshacconci talktalk 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Quite right, thank you. Amalthea 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry about this. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- No reason to be, I found it rather amusing. :) Cheers, Amalthea 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Asgardian again
Hi. Another editor left the following message on my Talk Page:
- Hello there, I am new to Misplaced Pages and just edited my first article. I added an "original plot" section to God of War III, as I think that the vision of the series creator is relevant information. I am not a native speaker, but I think my English isn't too bad. A fellow editor from Sydney (IP 125.xx) keeps deleting my section instead of improving it due to "poor grammar and weak, colloquial language". The user's history shows that he regularly uses the same comment when changing other edits. His wording is similar to that of user "Spartancourage", who was blocked for being the new account of user "Asgardian", who was banned. Can you please have a look into this? I would also appreciate your feedback on the quality of my "original plot" section, which I have posted on the talk page of God of War III. Many thanks in advance. 84.56.59.199 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking over that article's edit history, it appears that our newbie IP editor is referring to editor 125.63.185.218, which is indeed a Syndey IP, where Asgardian lives. His emphasis on "colloquial" language" and reverting edits do to poor "grammar" () is indeed a habit of Asgardian's, as is his blanking of an entire talk page, with the rationalization that it's "not illegal". Though this is true for registered users, I don't think anonymous IP's are supposed to do this, since IP pages are not necessarily the sole domain of one user. Blanking the page also has the effect of concealing past warnings for disruptive editing.
In addition, it also appears that 125.7.71.6 is Asgardian as well, as that is also an Australian IP from which he cites "weak colloquial language when making the same reverts as 125.63.185.218, and who also blanks the talk page, concealing past warnings and blocks for disruptive editing.
Since you were the one who reset Asgardian's block when he was found to be evading his ban, I thought it would be a good idea for you to investigate this, perhaps in order to make his ban indefinite. Can you look into it? Please let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply, will look into it as soon as possible, hopefully today. Amalthea 15:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
PhanuelB
Hi Amalthea. I am letting you know as a courtesy at another user's suggestion (because I see you were involved in the sock investigation) that I blocked this user indef. To be clear, I did not refer to sockpuppetry in my block but regard them as having exhausted the community's patience at this point. I have raised the block at AN/I if you want to respond there; otherwise here would also be fine. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I had left a comment at ANI a few minutes earlier. :)
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 15:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Expanding MoMK
Hi. Wikid77 here. I am returning from a 3-month topic ban about Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (MoMK) and the deleted article "Amanda Knox" which I created. I would like to expand the MoMK article, but have met much resistance from a few editors at the talk-page. Should this be a new issue at ANI or should we try a mediation, etc.? Some editors have reduced the article to 1 phrase about each issue, but other editors removed some of those sparse phrases, and now, the article has become hollow. As you might know, Kercher and Knox, as exchange students, moved to a cottage in Perugia in September 2007, paying rent to the lead roommate Filomena (1 of 2 Italian women in their late 20s). However, the MoMK article fails to mention these issues. Knox, an honors student from Seattle, arrived after Kercher, who showed her around Perugia, walked to classes with her, went to clubs with her, as they became fast friends. After 5 weeks (25 October), they attended a classical music concert at the University for Foreigners, and when Meredith left at intermission, Knox met student Raffaele Sollecito, who looked like Harry Potter to her. They immediately started staying overnight at his house a few blocks away. On Halloween, Knox and Kercher phoned each other several times, talking about their costumes. The next day, Kercher left around 4pm for dinner with British friends, and Knox/Sollecito went to his house. The next morning, Knox went home, but found Meredith missing, but several blood drops in various rooms of the house. At 12:07pm, Knox called Kercher's phone for 16 seconds (it "rang and rang"), then at 12:08 called lead roommate Filomena to say there was some blood, and Filomena replied she was returning from the city's Festival of the Dead to the house ASAP. Knox then called Kercher's other phone, which went straight to voicemail. Postal police soon arrived, after a neighbor returned one of those discarded mobile phones into the station. At the house, a buddy of Filomena's boyfriend forced the door to Meredith's room, and they found the body wearing only T-shirts under a duvet on the floor, stabbed in the neck, with blood all around. A police search reported 300 euros (~$420) and 2 credit cards missing, and Kercher's house keys were never found. However, the MoMK article contains few of these crucial details: a search of MoMK will not match: "rent" or "September 2007" or "Potter" or "Festival" or "keys" etc. How should this be contested? Reply when you have time, no rush. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you have a look
I came across the Louise Nippierd article and it has mostly been edited by one editor. I tagged the article for a review and the editor removed it with a snarky comment (see dif). While they state it was dealt with in 2009 a look at the articles edit history shows the the subject of the article was working on it and was warned on October 4, 2009. After that they no longer worked on the article directly. For the rest of 2009 the primary editor was User:Sharkli. I see that on October 4, 2009 there were {{NPOV}} and {{COI}} tags placed on it and on October 17, 2009 User:Sharkli stated on Talk:Louise Nippierd they knew the subject and were the main editor on the article. On June 26, 2010, all tags (At that point including an {{Orphan}} and {{cv}} tag) were removed by User:Andrew@artoslo.com, whose only edits at Misplaced Pages were to the article and to the article talk page giving the URL of their website, or I should say the subject of the articles page on their website. Since that date the editor has been User:Sharkli, outside on one other edits by User:Andrew@artoslo.com, a bot clean up for "links syntax and spacing" and my tagging for {{pov-check}} and {{COI}}. Over the life of this article I can't see where anybody other than someone close to the subject has removed tags, the few other editors who have come to the page seem to add the tags. To the best of my understanding these tags should not be removed by the subject of the article, a website owner who hosts the subject of the articles web page, or the main author of the article who admits they know the subject of the article. While there may not be a hard policy about these tags being removed it seems that any of the aforementioned removing a COI tag defeats the whole point of requesting neutrality, pov, and coi checks. I thought you could offer advice into what the next step should be. I think a SPA concern, along with the admitted COI issue, is very valid at this point. I also think with the removal of my tags and their comment we have some WP:OWN going on. Their edit history shows that approximately 95% of their edits have been to mainspace, and all but 4 edits of that 95% have been to the Louise Nippierd article or talk page. I am open to suggestions, or if you see something as an admin that needs acting on right away feel free. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)