Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 7 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)

'You Look Stupid Now'

Well, that's a fancy code. I prefer ROT13 myself. Derex 23:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not suppose to be uber cryptic. I could have went with the DaVinciCode style for fun. --NuclearUmpf 00:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha!

I was wondering who you were, you seemed very familiar with policy from the start. So it's Zer0faults. Ah. (BTW, whatever happened to Añoranza after that RFAR? Did he disappear?) – NSLE/Chacor 04:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah a month after Anoranza quit they got a 24 hour block ... --NuclearUmpf 10:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Gundagai Page

The post on the Gundgaai page is correct and easily verifiable. I tried to reply to you on the gundgaai page but they recerted it too. Check the 'history'. They do this to anythign I post. I even tried to comment on Rfc and they wiped it also. Very bizarre.

Weird to claim Gundagai is cradle of reconciliation when it isnt and there were multiple massacres around here. Even weirder though is what some eds do here.

I have put a comment on village pump 'miscellaneous' but they keep reverting it too. Rfc is deleted though so I dont get to have a say and what they are doing is then hidden.

The above IP(s) has been block and there contributions reverted due to personal attacks, not signing comments (Like the above comment), making misleading clams, avoiding blocks by disconnecting then reconnecting to get a new IP and also is abusive. More about this IP(s) Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* or contact User:Golden Wattle and User:Longhair. -- Bidgee 11:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not taking sides, but please do not revert this page or the RfC page. You cannot have dispute resolution if one party cannot comment to resolve the dispute. --NuclearZer0 11:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So I have no rights when the above IP makes misleading clams? -- Bidgee 11:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On my page you have no rights really, on the RfC you have to let them respond. I am not sure if you are familiar with what an RfC is actually, but its not a punishment forum, its a step in dispute resolution, you cannot have a resolution without the other party participating. If you feel they are lying, produce counter points, dont just attempt to silence them wholesale, it serves no good. Also some ISP's rotate IP's frequently and some use proxy servers that change everytime you open a new browser window etc. My job here uses 5 that I know of and my informatino can be sent over any of them without me even closing the browser window. --NuclearZer0 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was vandalism which is why I reverted. It's a dial-up account which you can just disconnect and reconnect. -- Bidgee 12:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That is fine, just please be more careful in the future and read the comment before reverting, it may not actually be vandalism. Thanks. I mentioned this on AN/I the RfC that is so hopefully an admin can look at this and put it to bed. --NuclearZer0 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

With the Gundgai issue I have looked into it since I live in the area and I have come up with nothing with there clams. The IP's cites are out of date or they can't be found to prove if it's true or not and they continue to readd it. -- Bidgee 12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was specifically reffering to comments made on my talk page and the RfC. I asked about the story he attempted to post and noone but him responded to my request for more information on the topic. The story seems sourced, so is the problem that the source is outdated? was proven false? its folk lore? If the source is real and the story exists, perhaps a good middle ground would be to move it to something like allegations section, folk lore, views of the natives, somethnig to that affect instead fo removing it. That way both parties are satisfied, its not labeled necessarily as true, but its not removed completely. --NuclearZer0 12:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You never asked Longhair, Golden Wattle or meself about this topic. If Misplaced Pages is going to have information that is misleading and an user that can get way with the acts they have done I would like all my edits and images removed. -- Bidgee 12:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page of the article. That is where I asked the question. So is the problem the story is not real, the anon user is making it up, is it folk lore, is it proven to have never happened? I am trying to understand the issue with the story so maybe a middle ground can be reached. --NuclearZer0 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw the reversions to VP assistance (I think it was), then your post on the article talk page. An article from ABC.net.au containing the information is linked in the article, so on its face the content seems reliably sourced. I'm not taking sides here, but I can easily understand why the anon might be hostile after being reverted at every avenue: articles, talk, help forums, etc. That seems more likely to escalate a conflict than resolve it. Gimmetrow 12:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I do not know the full history, if there is one, between these users. I found the posting on the AN/I page, which was reverted and I see they have been reverted at Village Pump as well. I hope these guys can come to a middle ground, the story is apparently well documented and references through a reliable source back to the newspaper of past that they sourced it as. While I would not extend this story to mean the people were treated horribly, its just about Yarri and one incident, apparently it says he was treated quite well actually. I will say that it appears to be something that in a small form should be included in the article. Most of what I read on this flood mentions Yarri and Jacky Jacky saving the people and the rewards they received for donig so. From my understanding Thatcher directed them to MedCabal and hopefully that works out for them. --NuclearZer0 12:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If the Anon can prove with verifiable source (As in where it can be found) then I have no problem however I have not found any. abc.net.au new story was about the Coolac Bypass which they said that story was wrong when it's fact. -- Bidgee 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide the source where Abc says they were wrong? The source I found about kickin Yarri was I think we are looking at the same thing. They date it back to being in a newspaper (Gundagai Times, 29 June 1879). I doubt Yarri went around saving another group during a flood, who really knows, but if you have a source stating ABC recinded the story, that would be great. --NuclearZer0 12:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the link I added. Gimmetrow 12:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Soruce I'm talking about is the Coolac Bypass (The first issues we had with the anon). -- Bidgee 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we are on different problems then. Is there anything wrong with the "Kicking Yarri" story he was attempting to add to the Gundagai article? I think we should tackle things one by one. --NuclearZer0 12:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gundagai anon - Golden Wattle comments

In considering your dealings with the anon, please consider the information at the RfC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and the associated talk page which details most recent history. Also the leading sections of the current Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales page. You can find her reverted edits in the history of the page. I have stated in numerous places including on talk pages and at the RfC that I will revert on sight any unsigned comment and I have stated that over 2 months ago. Others have also adoped that strategy.

The anon was well aware of the RfC (it was announced on talk pages she has edited) but has steered well clear of it for the several months (since late July) it has been active.

If you wish to restore her unsigned comments please use {{unsigned}} with links, the present iteration of the page has plain text (or maybe that is my internet connection problems, see below) and not all comments have the unsigned tag attributed. I am not actually vitally interested in her rewsponse anymore. It is over two months late. Merely continues to attack other editors and does not deal with her breaches of

      1. No original research and Verifiability
      2. No personal attacks, Civility, Etiquette
      3. Blocking policy

As her comments were unsigned (like all her comments), notwithstanding it is a response to the RfC, I reverted as per my previously stated intentions posted on the RfC and other talk pages which she has edited, and which have been endorsed explicitly and implicitly to date.

I note that someone has found a cite for Yarri being mistreated. The ABC story however, also mentions This true story focuses on what may be the first act of 'Reconcilation' in Australin history. ... The rescues are an important demonstration of the common humanity and goodwill that the Aborigines maintained towards the white settlers in spite of the diseases, depopulation and social disruption they had suffered since the advent of the Europeans. For their efforts Yarri and Jacky Jacky were presented with inscribed bronze gorgets (medallions) to be worn around their necks. ... For the remainder of their lives, Yarri and Jacky Jacky were entitled to demand sixpences and other trifles conductive to Aboriginal comfort from all Gundagai residents - which demands, when in reason, were not refused. ... Although Yarri was well treated by most white people as he got older, he did not get the same respect from everyone, as an article in the Gundagai Times dated 29 June 1879 shows: (incident cited) Today there are a number of monuments in Gundagai which honour the memory of Yarri. I don't think that the current statement The community is said to have developed a special affinity with the Wiradjuri people. Although Yarri was maltreated on at least one occasion afer the flood, Gundagai people believe that the flood and its aftermath was the birthplace of reconciliation. quite conveys that contemporaries of Yarri honoured him and Jacky Jacky specifically in their lifetime, that is the mention of the incident unbalances what was otherwise previously a brief mention and the paragraph now needs to be rebalanced to present a more neutral version of the history - leave in the incident of mistreatment but refer to contemporary and later community positive treatment of Yarri also.

You ask Is there anything wrong with the "Kicking Yarri" story he was attempting to add to the Gundagai article? - my issue would be its lack of balance, even in the context of the cite provided. In the context of the anon's past edits, she uses the wikipedia as a soapbox (when not attacking it or various editors she has tangled with).

At present I am away from home and the modem disconnects every few minutes and most pages can't load; hence I am on a wikibreak till Monday. For example, it took me 7 logons to post a comment to User talk:Thatcher131 (and that was including editing off-line) and to get here has taken another 5 logons! I cannot check the Carr Hansard reference which I think covered the reconciliation comments as well as the sesquicentenary of the flood mention. Nor can I check the article history to verify what was there before. I feel accordingly unable to edit until I return to less temperamental infrastructure.

The flood comments are merely the latest dispute in a series. Editors have been trying to work with her to establish verifiability of the "Coolac massacre" since June. They do not apparently exist. The anon editor is relying on textual interpretation of the poem to infer a massacre; textual interpretation that has also not been published. She refuses to acknowledge that this might be original research. You will find that discussion at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales/Archive 1. On the current talk page there are responses to her accusations of plagiarism.

In conclusion, in dealing with this editor, while it is always good to assume good faith, please assume good faith also of those who have dealt with her before and recognise that they have been thoroughly abused for their pains over a considerable period of time (since mid-June).--Golden Wattle 22:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the run down but it appears the problem was already solved. The ABC article is accepted as WP:RS and should be included as well as the Kicking Yarri story, however I am steering clear of any massacre issue, though as I stated, the story about the dog being the reason Gundagai is famous world wide is true, I presented a source for that as well. Also its not right to start a RfC then remove the persons comments, RfC is not a penalty, its a mediation attempt to resolve the problem, you cannot resolve the issue as I told the user above by silencing the other side. --NuclearZer0 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)