Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

This arbitration case has closed. Lou franklin is indefinitely banned from editing Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and related articles and discussion pages. He is also placed on personal attack and revert parole. These remedies will be enforced by block. For further details, please see the arbitration case page. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou

other half of this conversation is at User talk:KimvdLinde
Done. KimvdLinde 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sam Blanning 00:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not see it as putting a head in a spike, but more as a general notification that a specific editor has been banned from a specific page, so that new editors know how to dealw with him. KimvdLinde 17:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is that ArbCom ruling are exceptions, on editors who despite many many effort of the community have continued to ignore the policies that make it possible to work at Misplaced Pages. he had SO many options to change that himself. But he choose not to do it, and I think that before edtoirs go to the ArbCom it has to be pretty bad. I have done it once (still running), when I definatly did not see any other way out anymore. I do not feel good about it, but there are limites to where editors can go, and sometimes, things have to be done for the greater good. To be honrst, I feel sorry for Lou. I am sure he does not mean things bad. But in the end, I am here to make an encyclopedia. KimvdLinde 17:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande + a cunning vandal

Hmm, have you really gone to the page Roman Empire and replaced the value of the image of the Tetrarchs to 300px? When I do that, a completly image appears of a buch of ppl playing chess. Flamarande 11:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Absolutely nothing changes except the size. Try purging your cache - on Firefox press Ctrl-Shift-R, on IE press Ctrl-F5. I did a more thorough check on the history, and none of the edits to the article in the past few days have been vandalism, all the recent anon edits have either been blatant vandalism or good-faith, and the image itself hasn't been altered since February. I'm sure it must be a technical problem at your end. --Sam Blanning 11:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems so, I tried it with the computer of my brother. Man, this is weird as I never have seen (at least that I remmber) that image before. Sorry but I honestly thought someone had tampered with the image. Flamarande 12:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I pressed Ctrl-Shift-R and everything went back to normal. What a stupid mistake. Well anyway thanks Flamarande 12:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

other half of this conversation is at User talk:Bhadani
Nice that you reminded me. I was aware of the point, but missed it. Thank you. I am removing them. Regards. --Bhadani 13:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, may I give a link in this style on my User Page: Image:Wings of Fire.jpg. --Bhadani 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you can. --Sam Blanning 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of relevant links and content to a page

Hi Samuel

I have edited a couple of pages here and it would seem one is being confused with some sort of spam because of external linking that is on the page.

The page relates to serviced offices and has been edited becuase of links. Sometimes that page itself has been removed.

I have added four links to the bottom of the page that provide a referance to revelant oragnisations. This is NOT promotional linking and i am now very perplexed as it seems ok for other people to put other pages up and provide relevanmt links.

Please feel free to browse to 'serviced office' and let me know why these links are wrong.

thank you.

Neil.

You reverted a set of changes which served to neutralise what looked a lot like advertorial. 100% of your edit history is spam or vandalism. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Guy's version was more encyclopaedic and I'm not inclined to attempt mediation with a vandal. --Sam Blanning 14:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Free Office Finder

I speedied this as being essentially a contact attempt (email address at bottom, started with web link, etc). Feel free to undo and leave for its five days if you like, I didn't see much point. Another case of rouge admin abuse, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 13:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No complaint here. --Sam Blanning 14:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

It looks like we are 26 hours past the earliest time for the update of the template. Maybe it's time to update it now? Pecher 14:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been updated. Pecher 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Sanssouci

Did you see this? --Mmounties (Talk) 15:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The upcoming main page feature? Yes, very gratifying. --Sam Blanning 15:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock me this minute.

I have no idea who this guy is, and I was right in the middle of uploading images for Wetter, Hesse. Please unblock me. Kelisi 20:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume you're asking me to unblock an IP that you're using, since I haven't ever blocked your account. You'll have to tell me which IP you're using. And please bear in mind that I have no way to tell which accounts are using an IP. --Sam Blanning 22:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Endless Online (2nd nomination)

Just wanted to clarify your close in light of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability stating that The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. and If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on that topic. Do you think there is no consensus on the question of whether the article has reputable third party sources? Steve block Talk 21:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for ignoring 'voting' numbers in favour of enforcing policy (I closed an AfD only yesterday with that in mind). But in this case, I felt that as a) there was no particularly dubious information in the article, and b) those who argued for keeping the article did say that they considered the article to meet WP:V (as opposed to the The Game (game), where keep 'voters' admitted that the article wasn't verifiable but said it should be kept anyway), there was not sufficient justification to pass over the numbers.

That said, given that we've gone down from a keep result in December to a weak no consensus, I wouldn't surprised if a consensus to delete emerged at a later time. In fact, I wouldn't be at all put out if you took this to deletion review and they decided to overturn my close and delete on the grounds of verifiability. A consensus has more justification to overturn a split headcount than a single admin (even a rouge one). --Sam Blanning 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sam. I was more curious in your thinking on closing than in the actual close result itself, even though I was heavily involved in the debate, I wanted to see what is weighed up when difficult ones are closed. I'll probably leave off deletion review, I'm finding myself split in so many directions, and I respect that it's not the worst article ever written. It's tough to know where to begin in this place sometimes. Do I just ignore what I don't like, or do I make an effort to push the envelope? Once again, thanks for a very considered response. I wish all admins were like you, especially me. Steve block Talk 17:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

Is there some way you can block a user, and not the user's IP address? I've been blocked twice today because I apparently share 72.14.194.32 with Seahen, and I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to wait to make edits. You'll note on my user contribution page that I'm far from being a vandal, as I've increasingly spent my time doing reverts. Thanks! Carl.bunderson 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the MediaWiki software is set up such that if an IP is used by a blocked user, it gets automatically blocked, and the only way for an admin to know that it's been blocked is when he receives the flood of 'omg why did you block me >:(' messages. See WP:AUTOBLOCK. I've unblocked the address. --Sam Blanning 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining that. And sorry if I was a touch belligerent earlier. Carl.bunderson 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alice Barnham

Wow. I don't know what to say after that. "Thanks" doesn't cover it. Can I have your words bronzed somehow? AnonEMouse 23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That said, don't you have to take the deletion notice off, and make a "survived AFD" notice on its talk page? Or can a non-admin (like, say, me) do that? AnonEMouse 00:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry about that, I thought I'd managed to avoid screwing up so far - I've finished it off.

You could have completed the process - non-admins are allowed to close AfDs which aren't controversial and don't require admin intervention (i.e. have resulted in overwhelming consensus to 'keep'), so removing deletion notices after an admin has closed the discussion is almost certainly something a non-admin is welcome to do. But personally, I'd rather you tell me that I'd forgotten so I can smack myself upside the head and make more of an effort to do it properly in future :-) --Sam Blanning 00:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Here's your bronzing.

Amen to that. I didn't notice that AfD - I know of Barnham, Bacon was a benefactor of my old school. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That was a heck of an impressive rescue... (you see the neatest thing snooping around on other's user pages! Grin...) I gave AnonEMouse a Barnstar of Rescue, richly deserved in my view. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking (2)

This is getting truly tiresome. I am being blocked regardless of what it says in the log, and the page that keeps coming up says that you are responsible for it, just because my IP address has apparently recently been used by Seahen. I have no idea who that is, I am a regular contributor to WP, but I can't very well be one if you keep blocking me. Please take care of this problem. Kelisi 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I cannot unblock your IP until you tell me what it is. --Sam Blanning 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's 72.14.194.32, I've just unblocked it on Carl.bunderson's request. --Sam Blanning 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Preying from the Pulpit

I would like discuss your reasoning for putting "no consensus" on the above AfD. It appears that 8 seperate folks proposed that the article be either merged with the First Baptist Church of Hammond or deleted outright.

There were two people out of ten that voted to keep the article (one of whom using some very unencyclopedic reasoning). Can we please merge this content to First Baptist Church of Hammond as is the wishes of 8 out 10 editors? Vivaldi (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi's AfD was either POV driven or badly reasoned. For example, Vivaldi wrote at the Preying from the Pulpit AfD nomination: "It was a nightly news series from an unknown station, on an unknown date, at an unknown time." However, when the station name and other changes were added to tighten up the Jack Hyles article, Vivaldi revert these additions. Clearly, this user either didn't really believe not having the station's name was important or has failed to pay attention to what is being added. If its the former, this action demonstrates a user trying to white wash DOCUMENTED criticism or if it's the latter it demonstrates a user with a strong POV who cares little for the quality content. Arbusto 01:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a backroom boy, Arbustoo, if you have issues with this editor, take them to their talk page, RfC or somewhere else more appropriate than my talk page. --Sam Blanning 01:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I thought it was important to mention. Arbusto 01:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's important to mention, then mention it somewhere where it will get the attention it deserves. --Sam Blanning 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned on the Jack Hyles page where those massive deletions have occurred. Arbusto 01:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not the place to discuss merges, so putting a merge tag or actually doing a merge is entirely within someone's discretion when they close the AFD. Any of the people who 'vote' for merging are welcome to add the appropriate merges or do it themselves if consensus is sufficient.

Since you've told me where the merge should actually be to, I've gone ahead and added the suggested merge tags. --Sam Blanning 01:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More bad faith by Vivaldi. This user is contacting users who voted delete. Note Vivaldi's comments are "you suggested that we delete the article ... can you please comment on the proposed merger of the article at..." Arbusto 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please pardon my intrusion, I am new here (actually, I've been registered for about 2 months). I do not understand what your role is in the AfD process, or how 8 votes out of 10 for deletion or merging are somehow upset by two votes (one of which is from the guy who posted the article in question)? I am also wondering why Misplaced Pages would have an entire article that is based on an uncredited copy of a TV network's newscast that is hosted on a personal Website? Aren't you the least bit concerned that, at a minimum, the article's main links would be broken should the TV network decide they don't wish to have their TV programs distributed by private individuals making MP3s of them?

For the record, I did not vote, because I have not made up my mind what should be done with the article. Obviously, it cannot remain in its current form, but that is apparently not your concern. I think this article presents a great example of modern day yellow journalism, though I am certain that was not Arbusto's intent when he extracted it from the other articles. Pooua 03:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My role is to decide whether the outcome of the discussion means the article should be deleted or not. For this purpose a vote to 'merge' usually counts as a keep, because it means the article content should be somewhere. A merge cannot take place if the article is deleted - at the very least, it must be turned into a redirect under the terms of the GFDL. Some editors vote 'merge or delete, do not keep', but there were none in that discussion.

With 4 editors arguing for deletion, 5 for keeping it somewhere, and no pressing policy issues, the article could not be deleted. The closing admin is not obligated to do merges himself, especially when consensus isn't clear about where it should be merged or whether it should be merged at all. If you want it merged somewhere urgently, ask JzG, WarriorScribe or ReyBrujo, since they were the ones actually calling for merge. --Sam Blanning 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this process for me.

I would like to note that the article that was considered for deletion, "Preying from the Pulpit," is actually an extract from Misplaced Pages articles that already exist. That is, the material is already merged, and the current article is redundant. Pooua 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Pooua wants that content anywhere. It is critical of someone he admires. Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that is Mr. Blanning's concern. If it is, I will be happy to offer a rebuttal; otherwise, you and I, JzG, have ample exchange on other pages. Pooua 21:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting pages

Hey, i noticed you fixed up the redirecting between the pages Genei Ryodan, Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan) and Phantom Troupe. Sorry to bother you, but could you please explain how you where able to do it? Like..i was the one who stuffed it up by renaming the "Genei Ryodan" page into "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan)" and then renaming it into "Phantom Troupe".

This caused "Genei Ryodan" to be redirected to "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan)", instead of straight to "Phantom Troupe." I couldn't work out how to edit the "Genei Ryodan" page to make the redirecting go to "Phantom Troupe" instead, since whenever i tried getting to the "Genei Ryodan" page...i just got automatically redirected to "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan)". Like...basically, how are you supposed to fix up a redirect if you can't reach the page (since the page automatically redirects you.)

Also, is there anyway to get rid of redirecting pages? Like...the "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan" page was a mistake. But even though i've renamed the page into "Phantom Troupe", the old "Phantom Troupe (Genei Ryodan)" page still exists as a re-direct. Is there anyway to just delete it? Or would that involve the whole nominating-pages-for-deletion thing, even though it's just an empty page with a redirect on it?

Thanks Yaksha 09:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

When moving a page, usually it's a good idea to preserve the redirect, for two reasons: people who've visited the article before might try to get to it via its old name, and it saves you having to go through 'what links here' and changing every single wikilink to the new name. Redirects are cheap.

To fix double redirects, all you need to do is follow the redirect back and edit the redirect. To do this, first go to the redirect, and when it redirects you to the main article, click on 'redirected from foo', which will take you to the redirect. Edit the page, and you'll see the '#REDIRECT ] text, and all you have to is change 'whatever' to wherever the article is now.

To track down double redirects, go to the main page and click 'what links here'. That will show you a nested list of all articles that link to the page, including redirects. There shouldn't be more than two indented levels on it - it should look like this. Hope that helps. --Sam Blanning 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your signature on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2

How can you sign something so blatantly wrong? Look at my block log and you can easily see, that I am not a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions. I've been blocked twice for 3RR. My last block (1 week) has been for these three edits in five days. Please note, that one of those changes actually adds a link to the cartoons on an article version without cartoons. Raphael1 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you consider me illiterate? You have been blocked three times. --Sam Blanning 17:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been blocked three times, but my last block has been unjust. 3 reverts in 5 days is not a violation of WP:3RR. Raphael1 19:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How was the decision "delete"

When there was more "keep" votes?!?!?!?!?!Please answer meDzoni 23:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. My reasoning is right up there on top of the discussion, but what it comes down to is that the article did not meet Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality, verifiability, original thought or copyright - in fact it violated pretty much every basis of writing an encyclopaedia - and those arguing for keep provided no comfort that it ever would. If you want my closing to be reviewed, go to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. --Sam Blanning 23:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I SURE AS HELL WANT,BECAUSE MOST VOTES WERE "KEEP"! THIS IS ALL BECAUSE IT WAS A CRITIC SONG ABOUT CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL NATO AGRESSION.YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DELETE SOMETHING THAT MOST USERS VOTED "KEEP" ONDzoni 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted article recreated

The article you deleted, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song) (actually moved to El Condor pada before deletion), has been recreated by its original creator User:Dzoni, under that title, and now it has been listed for deletion again, under Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/El Condor pada. I believe that it now qualifies for a speedy delete. Balcer 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Sam Blanning 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your abuse of adminship

Can you explain why you deleted an article where there was Clearly NO CONCENSUS about deleting it. Do you have anything to say about it, before the complaint is filed against you at the appropriate place? BabaRera 23:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've said all I need to, see "How was the decision "delete"" above. --Sam Blanning 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is unheard of,this is dictatorship,going directly against the votes that were "Keep",that were majorityDzoni 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to ask for deletion review or not? Because I'm going to bed soon, and if you are going to file a request for review then I'd rather give my response there tonight. --Sam Blanning 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the previous nomination on Afd. I didn't know it was a recreation. DGX 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There were more votes to Keep than to delete. Only a fraction of editors from Balkans were aware of the vote for deletion. Your decision is highly disputable. We are going to see how the things develop when relevant editors were asked to comment about it. You decision is wrong, and you know it. Now lets see how you are going to defend yourself. BabaRera 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont be so sure. BabaRera 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to file request for abuse of adminship, not a deletion review. Because, that is what it is. There is also going to be greater awareness about what you did in the relevant community. BabaRera 23:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, though if you want the article undeleted WP:DRV is the only forum where that will happen. --Sam Blanning 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)