Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:10, 1 January 2008

I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

Merry Christmas

Pixelface (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Quackwatch Protection

Besides the 3RR and QW talkpage is there a page where the length of the page protection is discussed? The last 'indefinite' block ended in three days, before consensus was reached. Anthon01 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you can help me here? Anthon01 (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Karma's sockpuppetry

Please see the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. Zenwhat (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of user space page

I believe that your recent deletion of a page in an editor's user space may have been inappropriate, for reasons explained here.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• It might have been an appropriate use of user space if it were the space of an editor with a reputation for neutrality, but this editor has a reputation for the opposite. Much better to use {{editprotected}} or simply request unprotection. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please paste the code that I inserted into the draft, into the article talk page, so that I do not have to reconstruct it from scratch? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruct away -- it'll keep you out of trouble for a bit. •Jim62sch• 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a nice day too, Jim.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fetus

I noticed your comments to Ferrylodge (this must be getting old) regarding my deleting of what are POV images. Please see my comments here regarding Ferrylodge's bold-faced attempt to add POV images to the article. I must commend him on his subtlety in attempting this, but it is clear that the images are used to make the fetus more human-like, and therefore, the casual observer might think, "Abortion is evil, because this is obviously a human." If this project is to be NPOV, then let's put images that are used in medical education (of course, let's remember, I'm medically educated). OrangeMarlin 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am a Christian but not completely opposed to abortion, I supported David Alton's bill to reduce the date for terminations due to the fact that 24 week premature infants can now be saved, but I do not hold to the "human from the moment of conception" view. My opinion is that the images are acceptable, tey are no different to the images in our old books from when my wife was pregnant. I would let it go, but work very carefully on the surrounding text and sources. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going with your recommendation here, but if other editors agree my NPOV on the images, I'm going to stand up to Ferrylodge. I am not a Christian (as is well known) and I have a completely private view on abortion. I think that Creationism and Homeopathy is a load of crap, but Abortion is something I keep to myself. Believe it or not, if there is one article for which I will be completely neutral, it would be something like Fetus. I have no agenda there. OrangeMarlin 00:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue

Apparently, I screwed up when I asked 67.135.49.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) if he plans to constructively edit any pages after his block expires. He's now editing at User talk:67.135.49.211, making the same complaints as usual. I placed a rangeblock on 67.135.48.0/23, which went over like a lead balloon (see WP:AN/I#Jinxmchue IP rangeblock). There's some discussion there and some questions about why he was blocked in the first place. I removed the rangeblock and the protections I put on the talk pages earlier, but there's an unblock request at User talk:67.135.49.177. I don't know if you want to provide some explanation, but I figured you might want to at least know about it.

It looks like I've caused the interpersonal fiasco that I knew I'd cause right after Christmas. Good going on my part. --Elkman 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not to worry, the world continues to turn (and Jinxmchue continues to be a problem, which will eventually be resolved one way or another). Guy (Help!) 10:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

In case no one has dealt with it, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_not_getting_the_point_about_sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Looks to be dealt with for now, but not a good sign. I suspect this person may need to be politely but firmly shown the door. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Imaginative Sex

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Imaginative Sex. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I even want to know what the article was about?  ;) •Jim62sch• 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you can imagine ;-) Guy (Help!) 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe send them over to ED. Jehochman 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

John Gohde 2

I should probably participate in some way, as I spent considerable amount of time trying to get him to change his behavior, especially in Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine. Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please do, the more thoughtful input the better. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNCLE-G-IS-ALWAYS-RIGHT

Two questions: a) Why does that need a WP shortcut? b) Why doesn't it exist? Will 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, yes, it is both obvious and yet, perversely, absent. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  What I meant was the redirect would just be, in the end, a capitalisation redriect. No need to have a WP: shortcut then. Will 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• OIC. So we should have a policy Misplaced Pages:Uncle G is always right reflecting the consensus position. Yes, I can see that. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• How about a redirect to User:Uncle G/On sources and content? I was going to be bold and create the redirect, but then I thought it would seem patronising to say this in AfD discussions, it would be best to use the direct link and add sensible comments. And anyway, we all get things wrong sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Owl of Wisdom
		I award you this owl because you speak with a great deal of wisdom, and I hope that a lot more people will take a look at your work and what you have to say and reflect on it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)|

Eek. In the Chinese culture, such an award means somebody wishes you grave ill will. But I suppose it's better than a turtle, which means your wife is fooling around on you. Ra2007 (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Souveneiring

Hi, Guy. Please see my reply at Talk:35_mm_film#so-called_.22Souveneirng.22. jhawkinson (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

Hi, Guy. I think your revision to the lead satisfied my concerns. It's much better than the sentence that was replaced. Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Some good practice

Hi, and happy New Year! Just one quick thing - in an otherwise fair edit, you used rollback in a case where an explanation of the action was probably due. Your rationale on the TfD was good, but please keep in mind that rollbacks are like slaps in the face when used against established editors - in this case it would have been prudent to use the non-admin undo function instead so that you could leave a summary, especially given that you !voted in the TfD in a manner opposing the user you reverted.

See ye not, Courtesy
Is the true Alchemy,
Turning to gold all it touches and tries?

— George Meredith

Respectfully yours, Nihiltres 14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I clicked the admin rollback instead of the Twinkle one, but no biggie I think - we're going to hand out rollback to non-admins, after all. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing a protected page

Did you have consensus from us all at cold fusion to keep editing the article after it was protected? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I made an edit correcting an unambiguous error of fact and explained it on the talk page. This is permitted. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No you didn't. JzG, I respect you in a lot of instances, but avoiding changes of protected pages is not your strong suit. This was not an unambiguous error; it was clearly a change to avoid "the wrong version". Please revert yourself; I will probably take this to ANI otherwise. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• The citation says "see the 2004 DOE conclusion", but the text was not from the conclusion. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake from whoever inserted the text. It's an unambiguous factual error. The text was in quotes, linked as the "2004 DoE conclusion", but the quoted text was from the response to Charge Element 3, not from the conclusion. The sense is similar except that the Charge Element 3 response is more limited:

The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions."

versus

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.
The current reviewers identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, two of which were: 1) material science aspects of deuterated metals using modern characterization techniques, and 2) the study of particles reportedly emitted from deuterated foils using state-of-the-art apparatus and methods. The reviewers believed that this field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

Here's the source itself: http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf

Unless you're suggesting that the original editor deliberately falsified the source, which I hope they did not, whoever it was, then it's a simple correction of an unambiguous error of fact, quoting the wrong paragraph. Easy mistake to make, not at all controversial to fix, I'd have thought. It's not article text, even, it's the summary description of the cited source. If the editor meant to cite it differently I'm sure they will pipe up. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion takes place at Talk:Cold fusion, or is at least copied over there. Carcharoth (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already there - in fact, I noted the correction there immediately I made it. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem fair for an admin to (1) protect a page he had been editing and (2) keep editing that page. Unless you were asked by a consensus of other contributors to make a specific change. It seems rather that you were taking part in a revert war, and that one of your reversions was part of the reason Doc Glasgow protected the page.

Please self-revert, to show your good faith. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

abuse of power

I am notifying you per due process that your protection of the Condensed matter nuclear science page represents a violation of the page protection policy on two counts:

• Except in cases of clear vandalism, or issues with legal impact such as copyright or defamation, pages protected in an edit war are protected in whatever version they happen to be currently in.
• During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

Please correct this and avoid doing it again in the future. Thank you. Kevin Baas 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping