Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 17 October 2007

Isotope23 is almost completely not here... so I may not respond all that quickly (or at all). Just remember though; BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Bill-See answer at bottom.

About the last comment you sent me

Thank you very much for reminding me for I don't intend on vandalizing Misplaced Pages at all. I'll be more careful. Bwjs 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:J_J_Wilsdon.JPEG

Thanks for uploading Image:J_J_Wilsdon.JPEG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 11:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That Little Church article

I removed the text per WP:V and WP:BLP as there was no sourcing for this. IMO, the editor should stay blocked though until they retract that legal threat.--Isotope23 13:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the reason for your removal makes sense. And I'm not entirely sure what the policy on legal threats is, but I'm pretty sure he should be blocked for at least some duration for them -- especially since I warned him about it. Thanks for letting me know what you're doing. Gscshoyru 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That account is blocked indefinitely until they rescind the legal threat. While they content wasn't verifiable from what I could see, they have no reason to edit here if they are intent on pursuing a legal remedy.--Isotope23 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that. Thanks for following up and getting him indef blocked. Gscshoyru 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Accusations

Isotope23, you'll find that DVdm accused me of being a sock puppet first. Look at the article now. Can you see anything wrong with it? I've asked Dvdm to explain what exactly his problem is with it. I think that you ought to eagerly await his response if there ever will be one. I on my part would like to add references to the fact that this is still an active area of debate outside of the mainstream. Did you look up that reference on Galilean Electrodynamics? (Brigadier Armstrong 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Please see WP:V. Simply mentioning Galilean Electrodynamics as a reference is inadequate. What issues contain debates of Dingle's work? Right now what you are saying is akin to "George Bush choked on a pretzel see Time Magazine for proof". Even if it is 100% it isn't in any way verifiable from that statement. You need to have a cite, to a specific work, that people can fact check.

Beyond that, just because someone accuses you of being a sockpuppet doesn't mean you should turn around and accuse someone else of being a sock of your accuser. I don't know Dvdm at all, but DTobias has been around for ages... there is simply no way he's a sockpuppet of Dvdm and the suggestion that he is doesn't do much to help your position. Please be sure before you start dragging other editors in with claims like that, even if they are behaving like incivil jerks.--Isotope23 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. To be honest, if I really wanted to find evidence that there is still a huge debate going on, I could find it. The very fact that there are continual edit wars going on on the Herbert Dingle page is in itself evidence.

However, I'm not going to bother digging all the evidence up. If you don't want to put that fact in the article then leave it out. But you are playing into the hands of those who are merely out to bash Dingle because of their own prejudices.

The article as it exists now is a pretty accurate and basic encyclopaedia type article. It covers the main points. I read Denverons' objections, and surely you should be able to see for yourself that he is an extreme opponent of Dingle. He expressed some very anti-Dingle POV viewpoints which would hardly be acceptable under wikipedia rules.

The existing article has got no POV. What was Denveron actually trying to say? Was he saying that Dingle was anti-relativity or pro-relativity? It looked more to me like as if he was claiming that Dingle didn't understand relativity. That is a very POV claim.

What we really need to get to the bottom of is why is Denveron so anti-Dingle. OK, Denveron is pro-relativity and thinks that Dingle is wrong. Dingle thought that Einstein was wrong. The article is about Dingle and states that Dingle thought that Einstein was wrong. Denveron is unhappy about this being reported. (Brigadier Armstrong 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm not interested in getting into a content debate on the article, but as I said on the talkpage there need to be reliable sources that verify text. The fact that there is debate on an article talkpage isn't evidence of anything other than the fact that there is a debate on that talkpage. All I want to see is verifiable information from reliable sources, without original synthesis, portrayed in a neutral way. I slept through my physics classes at Uni; I don't want to relive that stuff by debating it here.--Isotope23 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your dismissal of the Galilean Electrodynamics link. That was clearly one example of a journal that specializes in anti-relativity disputes. The Dingle controversy was all about anti-relativity.

By the way, the dispute is not about factual accuracy. It is about the fact that DVdm doesn't feel comfortable with people knowing about the Dingle controversy. I'm going to add that to the discussion pages and I hope that you will add a tag to that extent as swiftly as you did in response to Denveron's specious arguments. (Brigadier Armstrong 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Hmm, I'm having trouble finding the "editors are trying to suppress the truth tag".

Kidding aside, I didn't add that tag in response to Denveron's post... I added it because clearly there are editors questioning the factual accuracy of the current article as it stands and I don't agree with your assessment that there isn't such a dispute. I've already clearly stated that I will not change versions on a protected article, but I of my own judgment felt it prudent to highlight the fact that there is a dispute ongoing about the factual accuracy of the article since it is protected and not possible for any editors to make changes to it right now.

Beyond that, I again reiterate that the Galilean Electrodynamics article and link absolutely do not source your statement at all. If you disagree than kindly provide me some sort or links or references to actual text from that publication where Dingle or his theories are discussed. You need absolutely explicit references that people can follow to verify that statement. The Galilean Electrodynamics website provides nothing of the sort from what I could see.--Isotope23 12:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The first line in that Galilean Electrodynamics reference that I gave you reads, "Galilean Electrodynamics is a journal devoted to criticism of relativity theory". The Dingle controversy is about his criticism of the theory of relativity.

The bit which was deleted, that I tried to restore, said that the debate about relativity is still ongoing in dissident journals. That was clearly a true statement and it was deleted.

Which editors questioned the factual accuarcy of the article? Denveron? And you immediately took his message on board and put a tag on the article and invited him to apply for unblocking? If you had read Denveron's message properly, you wood have seen that it was nothing other than unsourced POV criticism of Dingle.

It was then upheld by Wwoods as being some kind of credible and legitimate criticism of the existing article.

Do you really believe that you are behaving in a neutral manner? Can you not see that the object of DVdm and Denveron is to smear Dingle?

Is it not possible to have a neutral article about Dingle in which the basic simple facts are stated, Ie. that Dingle was pro-relativity in the early days when many of the heavyweights were still anti-relativity. Dingle later did a U-Turn but was marginalized by the now pro-relativity scientific community.

Does it not occur to you to enquire into the motives of DVdm, Denveron, and Wwoods as to why they feel so threatened by the facts surrounding the Dingle controversy?

Last week this article was blocked too. I put in a suggested guidelines section in the discussion pages. No administrator told me to apply for unblocking.

I get the impression that there is a team of editors working together who have a bias against Dingle and that they are conspiring to undermine his credibility.

Either you are one of them, which I don't think, or else, you haven't studied the controversy in sufficient detail, but have made the knee jerk assumption that DVdm and Denveron are good, consciencious wikipedians with no hidden agenda. (Brigadier Armstrong 13:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

• OK, but that is original synthesis. "Galilean Electrodynamics is a journal devoted to criticism of relativity theory" + "The Dingle controversy is about his criticism of the theory of relativity" != "There exists even today a growing number of dissenters who support Herbert Dingle's arguments". The logic doesn't work. You need to provide concrete, verifiable evidence of dissenters writing papers specifically in support of Dingle's theories, not just general criticisms of relativity. Beyond that you still didn't provide a cite for "the debate about relativity is still ongoing in dissident journals". Please remember that wikipeidia works on verifiability not truth. The fact that you provided one journal website still doesn't source that statement.
• Beyond that, I've explained why I tagged the article. I also believe I have acted absolutely neutrally here. I've not taken sides in this debate in any shape or form; all I've done is protect the article from an edit war, point out some relevant policies (WP:V; WP:OR) and add a tag that alludes to the fact there is a factual dispute on the talkpage. I've taken no sides in this dispute... I can't imagine how much more neutral that that I could be. If you feel the article should be unprotected, please feel free to request unprotction. If you feel there is a concerted effort to skew the article, please follow the steps to dispute resolution, specifically in regards to requesting a 3rd opinion or a request for comment on the article. If you feel I have not behaved neutrally, you are always free to file a request for review of my actions at the administrator noticeboard.--Isotope23 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And if I file a notice to the administrators notice board will it be taken as seriously as when DVdm does the same thing? I have just seen what happened yesterday on the administrator's notice board. You were swayed by DVdm and you told him that you realize that you have blocked the wrong article version. You were swayed by him because he pointed out that allegations of malpractice had been made against me. He did this in order to undermine my credibility.

What he didn't point out was the fact that he himself made every single one of those allegations against me in the first place. And he did so for the singular reason that I had been arguing with him about the very issue in question.

That is an extremely devious and dishonest tactic and it illustrates the extent that DVdm will go to, not only to undermine Dingle's credibility, but also to undermine the credibility of anybody who tries to defend Dingle. DVdm is a first order calumnist who knows exactly how to abuse the wikipedia regulations to his advantage and get the administrators on his side.

Can you not see that this guy is a single purpose user who guards the Dingle article and the special relativity article jealosusly night and day? He can't afford there to be even the slightest doubt over the credibility of Einstein.

It is time that you administrators caught on and saw right through him. There is clearly something wrong here. If Einstein was definitely right, DVdm would not be worrying about these articles. (Brigadier Armstrong 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

• Did you read the link I provided when I said I had protected the wrong version? What I meant was that no matter what version of the article I protected it was the wrong version to someone (as evidenced by the requests by others to go to a different, previous "consensus" wrong version). It didn't matter what version I protected. That is what tends to happen when an admin protects an article under dispute; one or both parties are pissed off about the version that is protected. Read the link... it's actually quite funny.

Beyond that, I will reiterate again that I have no intention of getting involved in the core content dispute here. I was and am not swayed by anyone. I'm not on anyone's "side". The fact that I have categorically declined every request for me to change the article after protection should be your first clue there. We have a dispute resolution process that should be followed by the editors arguing over the content if you cannot all come to a reasonable consensus amongst yourselves. Sorry, but I'm a sysop, not a mediator. Like I said before, you are free to lodge a report at the admin noticeboard if you feel I've acted inappropriately. To be honest I can't tell you how it would be received; I don't speak for anyone but myself here.--Isotope23 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. We'll leave it at that then. I'm satisfied now that you were only trying to end an edit war but I'm sorry nevertheless that you had to admit to DVdm that you realize that you locked it on a bad version. I'll write that off as a knee jerk reaction, not having been fully aware of the full circumstances at the time you made your statement to DVdm. (Brigadier Armstrong 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Well, other than the fact that I never actually admitted to anyone that I locked that article down in a "bad version" (again, follow that link above for context on my "wrong version" statement...), I'm happy to let this thread end.--Isotope23 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was this quote "Hmm, I didn't see this report, but I managed to find my way to this page via an alternate route and protected what is undoubtedly the wrong version.--Isotope23 talk 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)" which led me to believe that you were telling DVDm that you had protected what is undoubtedly the wrong page.

I see now however that you are saying that it is always the wrong page that is protected. However, in the context of responding to DVdm's letter which was pointing out the allegations against me (made by himself), you claimed that you hadn't seen those allegations and then went on to make your statement. In the context, it could easily have been construed that you were automatically accepting DVdm's allegations as proof of the fact that I am some kind of vandal.

Anyhow, we can drop this now as I know you are not directly involved in the dispute.(Brigadier Armstrong 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes... that is exactly what I was saying. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I will monitor the progress of the talks on the article talkpage.--Isotope23 18:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In reference to Mudaliar & Sengunthar

Hi Isotope23,

I have been a passive follower of the various edits in the Mudaliar and Sengunthar page for sometime, until now. Saedirof is lying a lot and thinks that he can force his POV on everyone by saying the same lies over and over again. He is actually a banned user (was banned by arbitration committee) who has been using multiple accounts to edit-war for a long time. He has been proven wrong on multiple counts but he simply denies the facts or starts questioning the validity of the academic references. He has also been shamelessly modifying the quotes from the references which some of the other editors have already been complaining about. Just my 2 cents. Maruthavel 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Need a third party...

User:Candy156sweet added a "Recent News" section to the 3 Doors Down article. One snippet is about their forthcoming studio album (that they are in the studio), one is about some songs they played at a show, and two are on a "controversy" that is nothing more than allegations in a divorce case. I removed the section with edit summary, and was given a vandalism warning for it. I believe the album should be added when it comes out (per CRYSTAL), the songs are fancruft, and the allegations are over a month old, were denied, have had no effect on the band, and are unencyclopedic in terms of the overall band. However, 3DD seems to have become a pet article of Candy's, and as few people edit the article, I don't believe any talkpage resolution will occur without third-party intervention. Please see User talk:MSJapan#Removal of Content and User talk:Candy156sweet#3 Doors Down for the pertinent discussion threads. MSJapan 04:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something. I realize that the recent news section of the article is not current, but I found that blanking the section out without reasoning to be in the wrong. This is not a "pet article" as User:MSJapan implies. I edit many different articles on wikipedia, and I merely saw that this was blanked without a relevant reason until I approached this user. I treated this situation as I would any other person who would blank the page. I didn't create the recent news section and I only added the cited information in good faith. Relevance of the subject matter is arbitrary, and I agree with that point. I didn't send him a warning, I merely asked to not blank sections from articles period. I see no harm in that. --Candy156sweet 05:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'll respond at the article talkpage about the content issue.--Isotope23 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Block request

User:Hugh shakespeare seems to be a sockpuppet of Italways, as he has made the same edits to the same articles (as evidenced by the SSP report here). I was wondering if the account could be blocked based on the quack test. MSJapan 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, though I still have no idea why Italways is being used as the master account... makes it harder to connect the dots when that account doesn't acutally have any contribs in the log.--Isotope23 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi, I am having a problem with the user Kukar, who has been engaged in an edit war over the geographical town page of Vrlika. As you see , he reverts all edits back to his even though there are errors in the article and it removes other information, not to mention no other town or village page on goes into such an extent over insignificant churches in villages. I believe he is trying to insert his own personal revisions in the article, and refuses to listen or discuss rationally. I don't know how to handle it. He is close to violating the 3 revert rule. Thank you for your time. --Jesuislafete 00:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Great... except the version you are reverting to is full of spelling errors, grammatical mishaps and (no offense to whomever the primary author is) looks as if it was written by a grade schooler. Beyond that, your revert appears to be removing valid, sourced, geographical information from the article. Please integrate the content you want to add into the current version of the article rather than just reverting back to one that is a complete mess. Just to be clear, my revert back to the version Kukar (talk · contribs) added is not an endorsement of the content, but that would be the better written version to work from if you want to integrate the Croatian War of Independence text. I would also add that population figures would require a citation from a reliable source.--Isotope23 12:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill Lichtenstein

Hi...I don't know how to leave you a message on your talk page. Just trying to find out why you deleted my bio page. Bill Lichtenstein. (redacted).

I'm moved this to the bottom and redacted your email so you don't get spammed. I deleted it because large sections of the article appeared to be lifted from lcmedia.com/presskit.pdf & http://www.lcmedia.com/bio1.pdf. There is no clear indication that these are not under copyright; we can't incorporate text unless it is in the public domain or released under the GFDL. This was the primary reason the article was deleted. However, beyond that, there are other reasons this article would likely be deleted if it were to be recreated in the same form. The text is taken from a press kit and therefore has some neutrality problems. Press kits are, by nature, not the most balanced information source. I'd also say that the article did not clearly demonstrate how the subject is notable from a Misplaced Pages biographical article standpoint. When I went looking for sources I wasn't able to find multiple reliable sources, that were independant of the subject, covering the subject. I'm also going to wager a guess from your message that you are the subject and the fact that you are writing an article about yourself could be seen as a conflict of interest. Usually it is a good idea to wait until someone else writes an article about you. I hope that answers your questions. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask. You also can contest the deletion of the article at deletion review if you wish to. Regards, --Isotope23 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Break it up! Your feuding with 74.97.109.210 over Ivana Milicevic must stop. If it continues, both of you will be blocked. This is your first warning.--Gp75motorsports 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Feuding? An anon made exactly one edit in June adding some commentary to the article, which was reverted. lame edit warring ensued over the nationality/ethnicity of the subject involving multiple editors and a very extensive discussion which you can read in the Archives. After discussion, the text that currently appears was agreed upon. Someone else came along, and apparently in good faith added back nationality information. This person appears to be a new editor, not the IP you mentioned above. I reverted with a very descriptive comment. I don't want to go back to the silliness of editors constantly arguing over nationality... hence the consensus version. There is no edit war, just bold edits, revert, and discussion (if that editor has a problem with this). I will say though that your hidden comment wasn't at all in the spirit of WP:AGF, nor is warning an anon for "edit warring" when they had 5 consecutive edits to an article without an edit in the middle. Perhaps you should be a bit more judicious in how you assess situations and hand out warnings.--Isotope23 14:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)