Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:02, 3 October 2006

In Need of Sources

How does someone go about finding articles that are in need of sources, particularly current events type events, though any grouping of articles that need sources would be fine. Does such a grouping or listing exist? --NuclearUmpf 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:FACT#Articles_that_lack_sources has got a few different catrgories of articles lacking sources. Hope this helps! --Casper2k3 13:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was looking for, thanks for your help. --NuclearUmpf 13:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Copy Violation

I found an article that I think may suffer heavily from copyvio issues. The article in question is on Johann Friedrich Overbeck and the source of the information seems to be . I do not see anything on the nndb page that says the text is from Misplaced Pages and actually says its Copyright of Soylent Communications. Is nndb a partner of Misplaced Pages, is there anyway to sort out who is using who's text? --NuclearUmpf 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The majority of both articles comes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which is in the public domain. The text of the article as it stands is very similar to the original text, which you can see by clicking on the article's "histroy" tab. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How do i do this?

On the page Wikiepdia Administrators noticeboard/incidents at the section called "Help!", you asked me to upload the email and the matter would be resolved. I'm just asking, how do I upload it and where to? - Ivan Kricancic 12:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You can copy and paste the contents of the email into that thread, remove any IP's of course, or you can contact an admin participating in the discussion about emailing it directly to them. --NuclearUmpf 12:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit history...

I see, from your user contributions, that nominating Muhammad Al Juhani article for deletion was the very first edit from this particular userid.

I think it is the very rare newbie whose first edit is a nomination for deletion. So, I figure it is likely that you have a longer history with the wikipedia.

In the interests of open-ness and transparency would you please consider sharing your previous userids? And, if you are currently editing, or engaging in discussions, from any other userids, would you consider sharing them with us too?

FWIW, I only have one userid.

I am trying my best to understand your edits, and I thought looking at your longer edit history might help. Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to circumvent your lack of sources with accusations. I have not broken any Misplaced Pages rules. Cheers! --NuclearUmpf 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was making a civil request, backed with a civil, meaningful explanation. Let me offer my apologies if you interpreted it as a an accusation. I took a look at some of your edits to administrator's notebook, and elsewhere, where you referred to incidents that seem to have occurred before this userid was created. I am curious about these incidents. I thought it might help me understand your current position -- where you don't seem willing to address the points I try to make. And would like to review them, and see whether I agree with you, or your correspondent. Maybe, if I review them, maybe I will find points we agree on, which we could use as a start to agreeing on a compromise?

I don't think there is any reason to apologize for my curiousity. However, if you can explain why my curiousity is misplaced, I'd be happy to apologize for it. Otherwise, let me repeat my request that you consider sharing your full contribution history with the rest of us. -- Geo Swan 20:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you make an accusation. I await sources on that article that we share, please refrain from posting the same message again or I will have to "speedy archive" my talk page. Cheers! --NuclearUmpf 22:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator Review

Howdy! I've created Misplaced Pages:Administrator Review as a process proposal, and I would like your thoughts on the subject. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani

Hello NuclearUmpf, thanks for your message. My explanation for considering this individual to be notable and worthy of inclusion in WP is set out perfectly clearly in my posting the AfD in question. As I stated, I believe all these detainees are notable due to the nature of the political event that they are embroiled in. I did not suggest that I had fresh information, thus I cannot provide any. There is no hard and fast metric to measure notability by, and that particular issue will always be subject to personal interpretation, hence AfD will always be a see-saw of sorts. As long as we can abide by consensual decisions that are made, all should be well. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Banned editors

Banned editors are not allowed to edit Misplaced Pages; this includes the Administator's Noticeboard. Please stop abetting this violation. Thank you. Jayjg 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Within Misplaced Pages, a ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on the main articles. A banned user is still able to edit any page; however, the user is discouraged from doing so. A ban is sometimes confused with a block, but the terms have distinct meanings. Blocked users are prevented from editing any page; an attempt to edit will be met with a "User is blocked" page.

--NuclearUmpf 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't restore comments by blocked users which are appropriately deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You have now violated 3RR on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please don't revert again or you will be blocked for 24 hours. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. - Misplaced Pages:Banning policy. Jayjg 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mainspace articles, try again, are you disputing the above? --NuclearUmpf 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You're quoting a Misplaced Pages disambiguation page, I'm quoting policy. Here's the policy in a nutshell (from that page) Extremely disruptive users may be banned from Misplaced Pages. Please respect these bans, don't bait banned users and don't help them out. Jayjg 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the freedom of editing the dab page, which indeed didn't reflect the policy correctly. Anybody more policy-savvy than me please feel free to correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just chiming in here. Dabljuh was indefinitely banned by Jimbo, not just over the articles, but over all of Misplaced Pages and the mailing list as well. The person you've been reverting is JayJG, a member of arbcom. He certainly knows how bans and blocks works as well as anyone. If you suspect he's in error, talk to him about it; don't revert him. – Quadell 17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I dont assume anyone knows policy simply because of their position, anything done in voting can be done out of popularity and not knowledge. So I make no assumptions about anyone based on their position. --NuclearUmpf 20:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

His own talk page is protected to keep him from editing, doesn't that give you a clue? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies the two started posting here and plotting world domination. I still think its rude to bait them and expect them not to comment back however. --NuclearUmpf 12:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Baiting users

You're skating on thin ice, I would suggest you stop. You won't convince JayJg or Zoe of your position, that's pretty obvious. You'll just wind up getting blocked for disruption. As for not baiting banned users, true enough it's a policy, but then again so is WP:IAR. --Kbdank71 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point so I am not doing any harm because I believe silencing that user is harming Misplaced Pages. --NuclearUmpf 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Incoming

Eh. Thanks for the heads up, though. BTW, I did want to tell you that you and I seem to have similar thoughts in AfD and DRV.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your new name

Regarding your suggestion to have your new name logged privately, you would have to ask an arbitrator (via e-mail I guess, to keep it private). The point of excercises like arbitration is to make it easier for admins to deal with problem users rather than having to go through the whole mediation/RFC/arbitration process all over again only to find out, it's Lightbringer again, or whomever. That can't be done if you don't tell anyone, and new user names avoiding arbitration are the commonest form of garden variety abusive sockpuppets.

With that out of the way, arbitration is also not supposed to be a club to beat you over the head with indefinitely. If you are not contentious and disruptive (at least, no more so than is usually acceptable) then you shouldn't have to deal with other users following you around trying to hang a scarlet letter around your neck all the time. I don't know that Travb is doing that, but I'm willing to look into it. (It can't be until tomorrow night probably.) If you feel your conduct is improved and you are being unfairly targeted, you could also try an editor review to get some opinions on your current behavior and whether Travb is overreacting to you. Hope this helps, and let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Thatcher131 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I will attempt to edit under this name and see if Travb continues, if he does I will contact an Arbcom member to see about having it logged privatly. Thank you again for your quick reply and handling. --NuclearUmpf 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Diff to link

I changed the diff you listed on WP:ANI to a link to the version, as the diff made obvious and perminant the material that was a likley BLP violation. JBKramer 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, sorry had not thought of that. --NuclearUmpf 19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)