Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:04, 3 November 2007

06:02, Friday 27 December 2024

Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For asking that others assumed good faith in me. I didn't even see that part of the conversation(between you and Durin) at that time. Thanks again!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Dunno why I spelled "accepted" as "excepted" though :-) ... WjBscribe 23:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to add it to your collection.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Done :-). WjBscribe 23:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to inform you, I will be coming back(as an editor). I realize now that it was unacceptable for me to only leave a few posts here and there(that add up to hundreds of posts, and not contributing to the project). I got a notice for not treating Misplaced Pages as a social networking place. That has never been my intention. As such, I will be editing mainspace(vandal reverting) and I apologize for violating WP:NOT.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe

Hey, You may have noticed me at Misplaced Pages:Changing username. I just wanted to drop by and say hello, we always used to get along rather well, and hopefully we can put the past behind us, and hopefully be friends, like we used to be. I do hope so :) Cheers, Qst 17:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. I hope this time works out better for you. WjBscribe 18:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Former administrators

Hi WJBscribe, do you think it would be a good idea to add this involuntary desysoping to the former administrators list?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Looking at the noticboard, that seemed like a harsh move on Jimbo's part. But what can you do? He's the boss, the one in charge.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. Done. WjBscribe 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

But leader's sometimes don't always make the best choices, I suppose.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also added a link. Hope that's alright.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I already had already included that link hadn't I? WjBscribe 21:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you did. I reverted myself. It didn't look like it at first.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It didn't look like link format, that's what I mean. (Link format Article) It looked like this(Article).--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, I messed up.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. No worries. Yeah, that pages mostly uses the "plainlinks" tags. WjBscribe 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh "don't be stupid. Temorary desysopping doesn't belong here" I had no idea.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well they always have been included in the past. But in deference to tempers running high on the issue, might be better left off. Though I suspect someone else is bound to readd it without checking the history... WjBscribe 00:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Good idea to leave the page alone. Not everyone is apparently as civil as you.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Kudos, U.S.A. As someone who has squeezed information on long ago events from closely reviewing page histories, I believe just getting a temporary action into the history is worthwhile, and is one reason I created my page to keep a tab on events like this. NoSeptember 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Derren Brown

He's not in a cat, nor does his article say anything about his sexuality. Expand, please? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the ref - Independent on Sunday. Someone asked for unprotection having found the source that confirmed it so I assume it'll get added to article soon... WjBscribe 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for the compliment. I will let you know if I ever decide that I'm willing to be put up for adminship. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Remember the dot

This above RfA has been protected(pending on the outcome). But since it's now closed, does it still need protection?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. Thanks for the heads up. WjBscribe 00:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. As you are aware, it was closed with "no consensus". Since your vote was one of the reasons why it did not succeed, I would like to personally address your concerns so that I can reapply successfully.

• I am aware of the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN, and I can assure you that I will be correctly using this wikiterminology in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember the dot (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• As an administrator, It would be wrong of me to use administrator tools to force a discussions one way or the other, aside from vandalism etc., no matter how ridiculous I view one side or the other.
• My talkpage has been littered with orphaned fair use notices and lack of fair use rationale notices because I converted, by hand, many images to the PNG format in place of the originals. I often do not see the value in spending time writing explicit use rationales for every image that was uploaded when 10c was rarely enforced. I can't possibly get to a significant number of them, and I disagree with the policy anyway. I had hoped that users would see the ridiculousness of mass non-free image deletions by bot. And, since I was not the original uploader for these images, I could not tag them with {{db-author}}. For unused non-free images that I was the sole uploader of, I prefer to just let the deletion process run its course and not waste time asking for the images to be speedily deleted a few days early.
• I did take an action on Image:Instan-t icon.png. I nominated the article it was used in, Instan-t, for deletion.
• The Wikimedia logos are essentially by-permission-only and they severely restrict the portability of Misplaced Pages content. They hinder others' ability to re-use our content without fear of copyright problems. It makes little sense to me to say that these logos are above the rules, since they cause the same kinds of problems as other non-free images. In my mind such a position violates WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, if that's what the community wants, then I cannot edit-war or use administrator tools to stop it.

Please let me know if this resolves your concerns. —Remember the dot 01:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User Page

Hi WJB, how are you ? I noticed your user page and I am impressed. It looks really awesome. So I was wondering if I can take your template and use it to make my own user page ? I will, of course, give you credit if I am allowed to use it. Thanks and best regards. Watchdogb 02:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to use any of the design - imitation is high form of flattery and all that... WjBscribe 02:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that again :D Thanks again Watchdogb 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rodryg Dunin

AfD nomination of Rodryg Dunin

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rodryg Dunin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rodryg Dunin (2nd Nomination). Thank you. Mindraker 11:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

I trust those exacting standards will now be exercised by you on all articles you edit? That anything that a reference does not assert will be deleted wholesale, no questions, no prods, no tags? Benjiboi 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Benji, WJB is just trying to get the article in tight enough shape so we can defend it from vandals and address the page protection people's concerns. He's on our side, OK? The article won't be deleted, and in a day or so we'll be smiling while we edit it. Jeffpw 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was pre-gutted before the anon IP showed up but now it's a just a reffed mess. I'm so embarrassed for us all. Benjiboi 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I still feel the edits were over-reaching and would not be readily found elsewhere but do appreciate you were trying to assist with an exceptionally stressful situation for which I'm grateful. Benjiboi 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A humble request

Hello WBJS I remember you had meditated a case relating to Sri Lankan Civil War. I am wondering if you can comment on issues relating to these articles. I know most people are reluctant to comment on these issued because they are afraid that they do not know much about the Conflict. However, I am wondering if you can comment on some Rules and claim if citations are RS or not (only based on wikipedia rules). You see, I am asking for help from various people because I have pleaded to stick to wikipedia rules and stop any type of edit warring. It will be a lot of help if you could. Thanks Watchdogb 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I would rather stay away as I know little about the conflict. But I could take a look - is there a particular page where these issues are being discussed at the moment? Or specific sources you want me to look at? WjBscribe 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly a particular source UTHR has been questioned by another user. I will add below what the other say RS say about the citation. It would be helpful if you can comment about it.

• . Here they are called "Leading righs body"
• Uthr reported abuses by LTTE]
• If anythin UTHR is a anti-LTTE source.
• More people using UTHR.

This is something another admin has found:

• PBS Frontline: UTHR "has published scathing reports detailing human-rights abuses in Sri Lanka", including criticism of the LTTE
• BBC: "a prominent Tamil human rights groups accused the Tamil Tigers ..."
• Chronicle of Higher Education: "The University Teachers for Human Rights is the only remaining Tamil Human-Rights group critical of the Tiger leadership."
• International Herald Tribune: "an independent Sri Lankan advocacy group"

Last, the two people who are running UTHR right now have won the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders for 2007. Watchdogb 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They would seem to be a valid source. There isn't really such a thing as a "biased" source save in exceptional cases - the best way to respond to a statement from a source one questions is to cite another source that makes a contrary statement. The Misplaced Pages article can then say - "Issue X is disputed, organisation Y says A and organisation Z says B". What information is UTHR being used as a source for? WjBscribe 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a reference for the Kalmunai massacre. The whole confusion is that on T:DYK another user has said that this article is not entitled to DYK because it has POV source. However, it is my understanding that if there is explicit attribution, then the article it can be used. Though I strongly believe that this citation is RS. Your comment would be welcome. Watchdogb 19:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Blnguyen is saying he think the source is POV and therefore invalid. If I understand what he's saying (which isn't clear) he's suggesting that alternative sources would present a different view of the event and that because the range of sources used in the article is not balanced, the overall article is advancing a particular POV. I don't know enough about the events to know if that's the case but that's how I'm reading his objection - he wants the article to also explain "the other side of the story" (if there is one). Looking at it from an outside perspective, it strikes me that there was probably an official justification for the incident - perhaps an allegation of provocation? It does read a little like only one perspective on what I presume is a controversial event with blame disputed. WjBscribe 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of courser your correct. I have looked around for other citation that has the "other side". I have not found anything about this. No Official inquiry/ investigation/ press report could be located. As such, I cannot provide the other side if there is nothing to say what happens.Watchdogb 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that's what Blnguyen's problem with the article is. I know the other side isn't always easy to find, but a Misplaced Pages article will be limited without it. By the way is this article - June 1990 massacre of police officers in Eastern Sri Lanka - about the same incident? If so, you should prob merge them into one... WjBscribe 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it since they happened on the same month and year. I am going to add that to the background to see if that will maybe neutralize things a bit. Thanks for the good find. Watchdogb 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly, we have 2 articles about the same incident. One of them portrays it as a massacre by the Sri Lankan Army and the other claims a massacre by the LTTE? WjBscribe 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, from what I just read from UTHR what happened was that LTTE decided to evacuate the Police from the eastern district of Sri Lanka Trincomalee. This lead to fighting between the Police and the LTTE and the Police decided to surrender to the LTTE. The police were taken to the Jungle and massacred by an LTTE Cadre (name Cashier). UTHR claims that the LTTE leader in that area did not give orders for the massacre but it happened nevertheless. In the later days the LTTE were forced out of the town of Kalmunai by the Sri Lankan Army. When the Sri Lankan Army took control of the town they massacred the civilians there. A local member of Parliment said that over 160 civilians were massacred by the Army but UTHR, which did more research and took information of the missing, claimed that at least 260 people were killed and in all over 1000 civilians (not police) were killed or have been missing.Watchdogb 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The two incidents seem so closely linked that they really can't have separate articles, they need to be combined into one that explains the full sequence of events in June 1990 or we have 2 articles telling only half of the story. WjBscribe 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Here is the real problem with the other side of the story. In many massacre cases , in Sri Lanka, what happens is that the Perpetrators completely deny responsibility. No media is allowed in war areas and people are scared to complain and talk about what happens because they are in danger also. So in essence, no one really knows that there has been a massacre (even the Army Commanders). If they do not know a massacre has taken place, then how can they comment about it ? Also by the time things like UTHR report these massacres it would be almost impossible for anyone to verify who has done the massacre or if a massacre even took place. So most of the time it is impossible to find the other side of the story. Watchdogb 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, can you please fix the comment at the T:DYK which says that the are the same story but with different perpetrators. One is a massacre of the Police and the other is a Massacre of civilians. Though I agree that we should merge them.Watchdogb 20:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I will clarify. WjBscribe 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that in this case we could have one article that explains:

1. First the LTTE massacre of police officers
2. Then the Sri Lankan Army reliation and killing of LTTE and civilians

That would create some form of balance and allow the second incident to be put in context. WjBscribe 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, I am not too familiar with how to merge. How should I go about this ? Also the citations given on the Police massacre is either missing or I have no access to it. Watchdogb 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Work out a suitable title for the whole series of events, move one of the articles to that title. Then cut and paste the relevant bits from the other article (its useful if you name the source article in the edit summary when doing so) and then change it to a redirect to the combined article. WjBscribe 20:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please comment as to why you think it should be merged. Couple of users have expressed oppositions to this. Thanks Watchdogb 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with 0845 number... again!

Hey, 0845 and 0870 number became unprotected today following your previous protection. I've made a radical overhaul of 0845 number, and it has been commented on that it looks a lot better now. Unfortunately, anonymous users keep reverting the page again! I just wanted your advice on how to proceed with this. I don't really want to have it fully protected again, but I guess that might be the only way. ~~ 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll semi-protect this time- given the lack of discussion I think its fair to characterise those IP edits as vandalism. WjBscribe 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, thanks very much! Perhaps that will convince the anonymous users to input into the discussion. I've started a section at the bottom regarding the updates since the previous unprotect, and hopefully we can sort out these petty problems. ~~ 00:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Will, JGXenite has a one sided and blinkered view. Please unprotect the page based on Wiki ideology where semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism or in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users or with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. Protection should be used only to prevent continuing disruption. Lack of discussion is not the issue here, please read the discussion before randomly protecting articles. Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snip1954 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to be more careful with accusing me of randomly protecting anything. You'll note that I protected the article before, and blocked several IPs that not only refused to discuss the material they challenged but blanked the talkpage discussions. The removal of content without discussion is disruption. The article was fully protected for over a month allowing for the content to be debated - no discussion occured. The talkpages are still available - raise concerns there - but I am not unprotecting the article. WjBscribe 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean no "discussion occurred"? Be more careful? Why, I am just stating the obvious. Unfortunately, it seems, you have not read the discussion. Correct me if I am wrong. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:SAYNOTO0870.COM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snip1954 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - minimal discussion occured. 3 posts then nothing for a month - that's hardly a positive level of participation. If I see good faithed efforts to resolve this matter, I will consider unprotecting or fully protecting the article. At the moment efforts appear to me to have been one-sided and these edits look like simple vandalism. WjBscribe 02:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, whatever you want to do, I don't mind, but I would not call it minimal discussion. After all the issue here is between handful of individuals. Also remember that article protection should not be used in a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users or with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. The edits look like vandalism but they are not, please read the discussion and see votes. I believe JGXenite is a vandal here who is going against what most people have voted for. The moment you unprotect the article I am sure people will remove the disputed links. Thanks for your help and have a good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snip1954 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is nice to see Snip1954 continuing to contribute to the discussion ... not. ~~ 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

CIMI-FM translation

Hi. I notice you are a proofreader for French-to-English translations, and I was wondering if you could check over my work in translating fr:CIMI-FM to CIMI-FM. After looking at Misplaced Pages:Translation, I'm not really clear on the best way to request proofreading on a page that wasn't submitted to the translation project to begin with, so if you don't have time, feel free to pass this on to anyone else or to tag it appopriately. DHowell 06:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The translation is first rate - I've made a couple of minor changes but it reads well. The article suffers the slight flaws of any translation from fr.wiki - they do use a much more florid writing style and their lack of insistance on rigorous sourcing is frustrating. Still, hopefully those elements will improve with time as more people becoming involved in editing it. Good work, WjBscribe 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"First rate"—wow, that's quite a complement, considering it's my first Misplaced Pages translation, what little knowledge of French I have is self-taught, and I probably wouldn't be able to hold a conversation in French if my life depended on it. Merci beaucoup. I basically did a Babelfish and a Google translation and amalgamated the two machine translations into something sensible; using Wiktionary and a heaping of common sense to decipher what didn't make sense in either case. DHowell 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems people get into if they have really good French is keeping the translated sentences too much like then original - so they don't sound natural in English. Because you've effectively extracted the information and then written it in your own words in English, I think the end results reads much better than a more literal translation (which is in a way more technically difficult). WjBscribe 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:UKFlags

Hi, an editor commented about this protection at ANI. Since apparently there is some dirt hidden somewhere, could you take a look and decide whether or not the template can now be unprotected? Thanks! -- lucasbfr 11:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be very reluctant to unprotect the flag templates given the amount of edit warring they are a magnate for, especially while there is a formal mediation case (Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage) attempting to resolve the dispute. I suspect unprotection will lead to edit warring and undermine that mediation. WjBscribe 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi continues with his anti-Catholic agenda in the Sister Roma article

Benjiboi has seen fit to include a picture in the Sister Roma article which depicts an event mocking the Passion of Jesus Christ. The article is not about that event, it is about the drag fag Michael Williams. Whether or not Williams co-hosted that event is irrelevant. Articles about persons -- term used loosely in the case of Williams -- ought to have pictures of that person, not events s/he has hosted. The only reason Benjiboi had for including the picture is to give presence and greater notoriety to an anti-Catholic event. In this way he fulfills his anti-Catholic agenda.

72.68.30.122 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think accusing someone of an "anti-Catholic agenda" is out of line, and a complete failure to assume good faith on the part of another editor. Is sister Roma not person on the right of the photo? The article does discuss her role in hosting such events - it seems a valid picture. WjBscribe 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo depicts an event mocking the beliefs which Catholics hold sacred. The focus of the photo is the mocking event, an anti-Catholic event, and not Williams. Even mention of the event is simply made to give Williams greater notoriety, and that for hosting events attended by limited numbers of people and not widely known outside of SF or queer circles.72.68.30.122 15:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Notable people and events are included even if they are offensive to certain religious groups. Someone notable in San Francisco or the queer community would be notable enough for Misplaced Pages and it appears that Sister Roma is the subject of multiple third party references. If you find the article offensive, may I politely suggest not reading it? WjBscribe 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone notable in SF, written about only in SF, is notable for WP? Oy! My greater concern is the lack of proper sourcing in the article. As has been said, there are many instances in the article where the material is not found in the references cited. This is an example of an editor like Benjiboi so taken up by his anti-Catholic agenda that he ignores the rules for sourcing. Read the article thoroughly and dbl-check the references -- you'll see what I mean. 72.68.30.122 16:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I do find it off-putting that you seem rather prone to casting aspersions on the motives of others. The sourcing seems to be of a reasonable standard and I see that the religious objections to the festival are also covered in the article (and sourced). Perhaps you'd like to give examples of statements in the article that you don't feel are backed up by the references? WjBscribe 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will, later today, as long as you're not casting aspersions on my motives in insisting on proper sourcing for the article. 72.68.30.122 16:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, WjBscribe, here ya go. Within this post, Williams = Roma. Starting from the top: Michael Williams may have been born December 22nd, but nobody was born on that day with the name cited in the infobox; "Sister ROMA! There's No Place Like Rome or simply Sister Roma" is not found in the next reference cited, nor is there anything which says "Sister Roma" is a contracted form of the more lengthly name -- so why cite that source?; "best known" and "most visible" is POV; Williams may be the first "Sister" of SPI to be "elevated and veiled," but not the first Sister anywhere to have done so -- I would think the first Sister to do so did so many hundreds of years ago, and in a place very different than SF; the STOP the Violence Campaign was intro'd to combat hate crimes throughout the city, but the reference cited does not say "to combat hate crimes...on college campuses"; the next reference cited does not say Williams has done coverage of the GayVN awards; reference (8) does not say Williams judged a Drag King contest; reference (10) does not say Williams was emcee at "the world's largest BDSM/leather event" -- only "the world's biggest leather fair"; reference (12) does not say the holiday dinners were served at Thanksgiving and Christmas; and there isn't anything at reference (16), as it is linked, that says Williams writes for them. Does this prove my point, that the article is not properly sourced? Why cite a source if the material is not found in the source? -- simply to give the impression of greater notoriety to the subject, Williams. This is the work of Benjiboi. Hence the deletions, because in the absence of proper sourcing, the material is OR. 72.68.30.122 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, looking though those:

1. As you say Williams = Roma. So the birthdate of one is presumably the birthdate of the other.
2. I have switched to a source that gives the fuller name
3. "Best known" is a direct quote from the source
4. I think the meaning was clear, but have altered it to "first of the group" to avoid confusion
5. From the passage about STOP the Violence: "The Order distributed window signs and whistles in the various neighborhoods and districts of the city as well as on college campuses."
6. GayVN awards coverage was obvious from another ref, I've added it to that sentence
7. The reference for judging a Drag King contest is the website of such a contest, where she has a bio under the title SISTER ROMA - JUDGE
8. Those seem like the same thing to me
9. Those seem to be examples of holiday dinners
10. There is a copy of the last issue at the site - it does indeed feature a column by Sister Roma

So no, I don't see your point. I'm leaning to the conclusion that you're causing trouble because you find the content objectionable. Having aired your concerns and had them found wanting, I respectfully suggest you move on. WjBscribe 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently they have. Benjiboi 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia article deletion

Hi, you deleted the Veropedia article, I would like to propose it for AfD, and let the community decide on this important subject. please replay. QuantumShadow 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article made no assertion of notability and contained no reliable sources. Wait until Veropedia has received some coverage in the media, but until then its just another website... WjBscribe 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how can I see the deleted Article, is it still possible or is it gone forever? QuantumShadow 21:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Username change request

Hey, thanks for formatting this username change request, I was going to do it, but then I thought that they should do it, if we were going to take the time to rename them, then they should file the request properly, maybe I'm just evil, though :) Qst 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My view is that as Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, insisting that people format their requests when they're obviously having difficult is counterproductive. One of the crats even criticised other crats for declining badly formatted requests rather than fixing them, so it seems best if the clerks just fix them (that's kind of the point of having clerks). WjBscribe 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Off thin ice?

So am I off thin ice now? Is is sufficient that I participate on recent changes patrol by reverting vandalism on articles, or is that not enought to satisfy the concerns raised? Veiw my most recent contribs. I just want to know if I'm going on the proper track now, so that I won't receive a huge complaint about this issue in the future, about not contributing to the encyclopedia.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I'm the right person to ask as it was Majorly who voiced the criticism, not me. Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be a social network so its expected users will do something beneficial to the encyclopedia - be that writing content, cleaning up articles, reverting vandalism, or contributing to meta discussions (deletion, policy etc.). It seems to me that as long as your contributions aren't limited to talk and user pages and are beneficial to the project, people should be satisfied. WjBscribe 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. My contribs include, but are limited to vandal reverts(other and user and talk edits). No content, no cleaning up of articles, and no contribution to meta discussion. I left Majorly a message of about the matter(apologizing for some of my comments) and saying that I hope that that issue would be put behind us. He had no further commments. So, I think it would be best if I droped the issue with him and move on with editing. If you, however, have any comments or suggestions you would like to add about this, I'm all ears.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving is probably good. As I see it, someone reverting vandalism is helping the project. My opinion is that you'll enjoy participating more if you broaden your participation further, but that's up to you. WjBscribe 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like your last signature only included the date.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, I obviously typed ~~~~~ instead of ~~~~. WjBscribe 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi WJBscribe, Please change my username to SouthIndian1964 if the newname Globalwarming2007 is causing problems. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendakallinaooru (talk • contribs) 07:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have said...

Re: Saints Sergius and Bacchus: Actually, she did comment on the talk page this last time. Sorry for not mentioning it. Aleta 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Her argument is absurd. You have to be notable to have an article on Misplaced Pages - the suggestion that not having an article is evidence of non-notability is ridiculous. WjBscribe 21:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - especially that you have to have an article in order to be worthy of being cited in another article! We certainly don't have articles for every single magazine or newspaper author we cite (nor should we). Aleta 21:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey - could you take a look at this?

User:Moriori has blanked his page and is deleting his (awesome) images, with summaries that speak of being wronged by User:Liftarn. Can I ask you to look into the matter and try to negotiate some kind of happy ending to this, or if you don't have the resources, ask someone else? I ask because I'm plenty busy and tend to have the interpersonal skills of a clam. --Kizor 07:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In this case I think this goes a little beyond interpersonal skills - his conduct is outrageous. Personal attacks in allready pointy deletions of images? I've advised him to restore the images and raise the matter at the admin noticeboard here. Liftarn seems to be have been totally reasonable - even apologising for any offence caused whereas Moriori seems to have forgotten why the Community gave him admin tools in the first place. I'm not sure I can promise the happy ending - using admin tools in that way usually has consequences... WjBscribe 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rejected checkuser request for Iantresman

Hi, I'm not sure if you or Dmcdevit would be the right person to write to about this. I'm writing to you because you recently moved the Iantresman request to the rejected list. Apparently this is because Dmcdevit wrote "Unnecessary. These have all been since blocked by Raul, along with he IP. I think the matter is resolved" . However, examining the blog logs of Iantresman's suspected sock puppets shows that Leokor has a clean block log. So Dmcdevit was in fact mistaken. Would it be possible to reinstate the Leokor part of the checkuser request? Cardamon 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm really the wrong person to bring this to - Dmcdevit is the checkuser and his determination is the last word - if he says a check is unnecessary it needs to be filed away. If you think he needs to take another look at the request, its prob best to leave him a quick note on his talkpage. WjBscribe 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cardamon 20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements

Will you be running for arbitration committee elections? You seem to be highly qualified.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not intending to run. My off-wiki activities being rather focused on the legal world, I'd prefer to avoid taking up a quasi-judicial role here otherwise editing the Wiki might feel too similar to work. I'm also not yet ready to give up my work on the Mediation Committee and the two roles aren't compatible. I'm confident that at least 6 (assuming that's the number of positions that will end up being filled) good candidates will present themselves and am looking forward to participating in the election process in December. Thanks for the interest though :-) ... WjBscribe 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Are you the kind of lawyer who gos to court and tries to persuade the judge that a person is innocent from a crime?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the goal - though it would probably also involve the other side of the coin - arguing that someone is guilty as well, depending on which side employed me. That's a little way into the future though - at the moment I'm working as an assistant and doing training. WjBscribe 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you know...?

Hey WJB, do you happen to know if Robert Lentz is gay? I'm thinking that I read that sometime, but in looking for sources for the article I started, I haven't found anything that addresses it. (He's a friar, so presumably celibate, but his orientation might be gay, which might make him more accepting of two saints' having been gay.) Anyway, I'd like to note it with a good source if I can, but it's possible I dreamt it all.  :) Aleta 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.rentapriest.com/web/?_p=1025&newsId=87&title=GAY%20PRIESTS&catId=13 Jeffpw 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks Jeff!! :) Aleta 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that Lentz "repented" and rejoined his Roman Catholic religious order about a year ago so I'm not sure whether its still appropriate to describe him as gay. I have no references however... WjBscribe 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.., I haven't seen anything about that, but I'll have to keep my eyes open for it. Thanks! Aleta 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Laurent Dailliez

Historians are a bit far from my area, but I don't see any evidence of passing WP:PROF on the basis of his academic impact. Once upon a time, when we had WP:AUTHOR, I'd want to know more about édition Perrin's status (which seems quite respectable), but for a book that has been through three editions, the lack of impact is odd. I looked around fr.wikipedia.org, and their Templar Wikiproject's discussion pages. Here is some discussion of Alain Demurger's criticism (from this source?) of Dalliez's 1996 (Regle et statuts de l'Ordre du Temple?) work. There's some discussion of Dailliez's authorship of this article on the Templars on "l'Encyclopedia Universalis" (where I can't get the homepage, or "view entire article" buttons to work correctly) which seems to involve discussion about his status as a mainstream source. In any case, Daillez is cited in the bibliography of the main article on fr, but I note that while many of the authors in that bibliography have biographical articles, that Dailliez does not (nor can I find an AfD for one). I've asked that wikiproject if they wish to comment on Talk:Laurent Dailliez. Punch-line: I'd go d at AfD, but DGG and other sane people might well go k, might want to ask DGG for his 2c. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 19:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hello there,

Thank you for taking the time to inform me of what's going on. I will do my best to keep on top of stuff as it comes.. I'm working full time in addition to being a full-time student, so I'll see if I can squeeze an hour or two here or there. Linuxbeak (The cake is a lie!) 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)