Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:33, 14 March 2007

Archives:

*/Archive 1: July, 2005 – June, 2006
*/Archive 2: June 2-3, 2006
*/Archive 3: June 3-20, 2006
*/Archive 4: June 30 – July 18, 2006
*/Archive 5: July 19 - September 8, 2006
*/Archive 6: September 9 - October 5, 2006
*/Archive 7: October 7 - November 26, 2006
*/Archive 8: November 27, 2006 - February 12, 2007
*/Archive 9: February 13, 2007 - March 3, 2007
*/Archive 10: March 3, 2007 - March 11, 2007

Feel free to leave any comments below. It should go without saying that trolling, vandalism, and personal attacks will be promptly removed. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

My name is James McCaffrey. First let me say I don't know much about wikipedia rules but want to do the right thing. Anyway, some time ago several colleagues put together wikipedia articles based on some of my original research ( combinadic and factoradic) and asked me to create a target about myself for those articles and several other wikipedia references (in particular my listing as a person of some significance in the software test automation community based on my book and journal articles). So I did. Are we not allowed to have articles about people? Or does an article about people have to be created by a certain special category of wikipedia writer? Anyway, just not sure why my paragraph got deleted when my colleague's paragrpahs are still there.

Writing articles about yourself is a conflict of interest. Beyond that, the article was deleted because it didn't assert any level of importance and notability. IrishGuy 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the quick reply. So, at the expense of sounding dumb, should I ask one of my peers to craft an article which includes references to my contributions to the field? Or is there a mechanism to have a paragrpah reviewed before posting?

Honestly, asking someone to write about you on your behalf would still fall afoul of the conflict of interest guidelines. IrishGuy 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant the mathemticians who asked me to write a paragraph in the first place (if you review the factoradic and combinadic articles histories you'll see their names); in other words, in the very beginnng I should have just asked them to do it themselves. Is there a way I can have them contact you to review any paragrpah first to avoid posting a paragrpah which violates wikipedia rules?

You sound like a thoughtful guy and I'd like to take this disscussion about the general natue of wikipedia offline. I can be reached by e-mail at v-jammc@microsoft.com or jamesDmccaffrey@hotmail.com. For example, a local high school actually has forbidden their students to use wikipedia in any way whatsoever because "anyone can put anything there". Crazy, but I didn't have a good response.

Please Explain

Would you please kindly explain why the article on theDreamHunter was summarilly deleted, even though the editor specifically requested a pause of time on the talk page before returning to the discussion, promising to rebut the assertions of copyright violation. It is the editor himself, in fact, who holds the copyright for all the material in question (here and on other websites). Further, having read "WP:NOTE", I --a new user-- do now understand the criteria and objections involved, but this could have been addressed and ameliorated. Now it cannot, because the article has been deleted on spurious copyright violation claims. I am happy to discuss this futher, should you require, in good faith. 74.96.59.177 21:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)theDreamHunter

It was deleted because beyond the copyright violation, it made no assertion of notability (for which it could have been an A7 deletion instead of a copyvio) and the band fails WP:BAND. I chose to just stick with the copyvio instead of the A7. Either would have been proper deletion criteria. IrishGuy 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the work you're doing - I've seen lately that you're all over vandals and spammers...you rock! RJASE1 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for sending them my way. You are doing fine work with WP:AIV. IrishGuy 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why Brian Townsend is not notable enough to have an article about him, while Dr. Amir Nassiri and Fred Chamanara are. Bunzobunzo 22:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)bunzobunzo

While he may be notable, the article didn't outline it. It basically said he has a huge following on the internet. That is unreferenced and non-notable. IrishGuy 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out those two articles. All they say is that the person appeared on High Stakes Poker. Brian Townsend also appeared on High Stakes Poker, which the article stated. What makes Nassiri and Chamanara's articles acceptable?

Thanks

That should keep him away for a week, but based on last night he'll be back as soon as the protection wears off. Based on previous experience requests on RFPP get ignored as the admin replies "well he's blocked now" not realising his method is to come right back with a new account or IP, so I thought an ANI post would at least get more eyes on the situation. Thanks for the help. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. If you need assistance in the future, don't hesitate to drop me a line here. IrishGuy 22:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks will do, based on last night that'll be about 22:19 next Sunday! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For rv'ing the vandalism to my User page, Best, Fvasconcellos 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. IrishGuy 22:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

HMRC

Why have you reverted the HMRC edits? It is clear to anyone that the page linked to is related to HMRC and discusses HMRC issues. Did you bother to read the page or just revert it for the power kick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs)

Mass additions of an external link is spam. Spam gets reverted. Please read WP:SPAM. When finished, I invite you to read WP:CIV. IrishGuy 02:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't mass addition of spam. It is the addition of a website created by and for HMRC staff in which issues dicussed in the HMRC, Inland Revenue and HM Customs & Excise articles (Lean, Angels & Dragons, etc.) are also discussed. It provides further insight for Misplaced Pages users. On those grounds I feel your edits are abusive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The owner of the website is entirely irrelevant. You are adding it to multiple articles and readding it when removed. That is spam. Please stop. IrishGuy 02:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding the link to three related articles to provide readers with further reference material. The material is provided by HMRC staff and provides a more balanced outlook, in a similar way to the union articles which you seem to have no problem linking to. Again, I dispute your reasoning in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

There is no dispute. You feel that you should be able to spam...even though WP:EL and WP:SPAM say otherwise. That isn't a dispute. Hence your various warnings. Stop spamming. IrishGuy 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You may feel there is no dispute, but that is probably due to the fact it is your reasoning I am disputing. Having read the pages you refer to, I feel that a staff forum in which the issues raised in the article are discussed is just as legitimate a link as the union website which you appear to agree is legitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

No. It is policy you are disputing. WP:EL has a policy on forums. Beyond that, WP:SPAM is very clear about your actions. IrishGuy 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. I feel that the links I added add more to the issues discussed, as is allowed under WP:EL. Again, I state it is your reasoning, and interpretation, that I am disputing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EarlyBird (talk • contribs)

Honestly, you can disagree with policy until you are blue. It will still be policy. You are spamming. IrishGuy 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, you should be blocked. You went up to four warnings with your IP, then you turned around, logged in, and got up to three new warnings before you ceased. Seven warnings in total. IrishGuy 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Catriona Millar

Can you tell me why you removed the page about the artist Catriona Millar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broniecat (talk • contribs)

The article didn't illustrate any notability. There are many artists in the world, how does Millar meet WP:NOTE? IrishGuy 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Threats

Are you some sort of head honcho round here? And in any event, how does correcting grammar and removing the word "fucking" from the comments of some ill-informed poster constitute "vandalism"? Bill Tegner 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As noted on the guidelines at WP:TALK, what you are doing is wrong. Don't alter the comments of others. I gave you two warnings, and yet you ignored them and did it again. I gave you a third warning. Warnings aren't threats. IrishGuy 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave the obscenities and bad grammar and spelling errors of others alone. They hardly add gravitas to Misplaced Pages, but if that's what you want, I seem to have no choice. Presumably, however, I am still allowed to give my own comments? And you haven't answered my question: quite what is your locus? Bill Tegner 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He's doing what all good editors do: contributing to the common enterprise. In this case, he's reminding us all of the common rules that we follow together, such as not editing other people's talk-page words and thus falsifying the historical record; and refraining from personal attacks and incivility. The system of phased warnings is part of that set of common rules. Some people will get vandalism warnings from three or four other editors, before yet another editor/administrator blocks them. --Orange Mike 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you can comment. Nobody said otherwise. As Orangemike illustrated above, any editor can warn another for policy violations. As for your question, if you are asking my location: there is no way I am answering that question. If you are asking my source of activity: I am an admin. IrishGuy 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, by locus I did not mean location. That's obviously USA, not Ireland. I meant your role. And you've answered that question. Bill Tegner 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

HIZKIAH

I've delt with nearly 100 of Bonaparte's socks, and I can say for certain that this user matches the behavior of Bonaparte. This one in particular reminded me of Wissahickon Creek, who wanted to mediate, propose new policies, start RfCs against other people (see Eliade), etc. Khoikhoi 20:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how many users have been banned for being "Bonaparte"? Any inconvenient user is liable to being scapegoated because it is known that Bonny is behind everything, kind of like the Pig Napoleon in George Orwell's Animal Farm who was also behind everything :) I'm sorry, but this seems very flimsy to me.--Domitius 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

While I respect that you may have a great deal of experience with Bonaparte, I agree with Domitius. I'm not seeing the connection here. IrishGuy 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would like, I could email you my reasons in full. Khoikhoi 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)</s.