Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:54, 8 February 2008

If your issue requires a response from me and cannot be handled by anyone else, please post it here, otherwise please use the admin noticeboard or some other location in order that it can be dealt with in a timely fashion. Thank you.

Please read the section entitled "RFA messages" BEFORE you post yours.

• Older archives
• Archive: September-October 2006
• Archive: November-December 2006
• Archive: January-September 2007 (you'll notice my Misplaced Pages editing dropped off fairly significantly this year)
• Archive: October 2007
• Archive: November 2007
• Archive: December 2007 (part 1) (part 2)
• Archive: January 2008

Talk

If you'd like to add a comment, feel free. Just click the + button next to "Edit this page" above (may vary if you're using a custom skin). But please type ~~~~ at the end to add your name and the date and time.

Note that problems which any administrator could resolve are best posted on one of the various administrators' noticeboards.

Protection and unprotection

If you have the capability to unprotect something, I trust you to determine whether a page I protected should be unprotected or not. No need to ask.

RFA messages

• If you've been promoted, congratulations, now go and patrol Special:Newpages or something. No need to leave me a message here, I participate in many RFAs so it would probably only clog the place up.
• If your nomination failed, or I opposed you, then I hope you've taken on board what you've learned. If you want clarification or advice from me, please feel free to leave a message, but otherwise there is no need.
• That is to say, please do not leave me RFA messages, unless you need a response. They will be removed. Thank you.

Email

I would much prefer you leave me a message here rather than emailing me. If you are blocked, then obviously you can't. If I blocked you, then email me (see the toolbox), but if some other admin blocked you, email that admin instead. (See Special:Log/block for more.) If the block was for violating the three-revert rule, and you are going to claim you were reverting vandalism, then first read what vandalism is not and an admin's view of the 3RR.

Linking

If your message is about an article, an AFD, or the like, please link to it. To do this, copy the main heading at the top of the page (like User talk:Stifle for this page) and paste it between ].

Replies

• Please reply to me here if possible.
• If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
• Unless your message or your talk page advises otherwise, I will reply here and copy my reply to your talk page.
• Please don't leave your email address as I cannot reply to messages by email.

Archiving

I archive this page semi-regularly, mainly when it gets over 32KB or we get a new month. The exception is posts which I consider personal attacks or incivil or the like, which may get selectively archived faster.

Bueller 3RR violation

Hi, I added a comment to your ruling on the 3RR report I filed about Bueller; just posting here in case you miss it there. A response is appreciated. Thanks! csloat (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Heroes image

With respect, is it your contention that the image is in fact readily replaceable? I ask, because I haven't seen a cast ensemble grouping image anywhere on the web. Perhaps I am in fact mistaken in my research, but I uploaded it with the conviction that an alternative image does not exist. - Arcayne () 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is my contention that there is a free equivalent that could be created. WP:NFCC #1 requires that no free equivalent is available or could be created, it says nothing of "readily replaceable". Apologies for the poor choice of words in my original message.

Just about any fair use image of any combination of living people is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(You don't need to duplicate a response on my Talk page; for the duration of this conversation, I've watchlisted your page)

I am puzzled at your idea that a free image of the vast ensemble exists or is "readily available". Perhaps you have come across such a thing, and could point me to it? Misplaced Pages use cast ensemble and band group images all the time, as evidenced by just a cursory glance through the 'pedia:

Film & Television

• Smallville,
• Blake's Seven,
• Fr. Who,
• Stargate (FA),
• Carnivàle (FA),
• The Office US (FA) (as well as the other versions of the series)
• Our Gang (FA)
• The West Wing (FA)
• The Wire (FA)

Music

• Motörhead (FA)
• Pearl Jam (FA)
• Pink Floyd (FA)
• Pixies (FA)

...the list goes on and on, but I think I've presented fairly conclusive evidence that "just about any fair use image of any combination of living people" is in fact permitted in Misplaced Pages, and in fact is utilized in many, many FA-quality articles. - Arcayne () 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into those. Again, I did not say that such an image exists or is readily available, merely could be created. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would contend that the image manipulation on the unaltered image makes the modified image a created image. - Arcayne () 20:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it is also a derivative work and would need both copyright holders to release it. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I asked around a bit, to see if my thinking was out in left field. It seems to be an okay application, I think. - Arcayne () 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see how it goes. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the discussion, are we now on the same page about the image? If not, please let me know. And thanks for self-reverting the PUI tag. - Arcayne () 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus there yet. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Canada page unneccessary

The edit warring referred to has long ceased. It occurred in October, and by mutual agreement the debate as taken to the Dominion page where it continues. I'm sorry I did not make that clear. My aim in bringing this to your attention was to show that the pattern of edit warring was repeating itself again. I wanted to nip it in the bud before it starts again. Thanks.--Soulscanner (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever considered including tag-team edit warring as a 3RR violation? When two people act in tandem (unintentionally or intentionally) to make the same revert four times, they may not technically violate the 3RR rule, but they certainly do so in spirit. This was the problem on both sides in the edit war on the Canada page, and precisely what I wanted to avoid on the Dominion page. Would it not be easier to warn editors as you did here rather than shut down pages for weeks at a time as was done in the Canada case? I'm sure this would cure the escalation problem without blocking access to pages. Any comments on this? --Soulscanner (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They can be blocked for edit warring as well. Feel free to bring issues like that to the admin noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Dominion

Thank you for your consideration and counsel -- see here. Please note that this was being discussed, albeit torturously; however, the addition of these tags and said edits are a further demonstration of this editor's disruptive behaviour. I have requested reliable references from this editor -- or anyone, frankly -- which justify the assertions made. Said references have also been requested of others previously, and apparently for months (glance at the talk page) -- to no avail. Let me be clear: if these references aren't provided by said parties in a reasonable timeframe or unless compelled otherwise, I will remove the extraneous tags. Please feel free to monitor said communications to ensure that contributions and discourse conform to Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Commented over there. Bear in mind that it is for the person seeking information be added or kept in an article to verify it, not for someone looking for it to be removed or not included to provide evidence that it isn't true. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but please elaborate. The information being challenged is already supported by the references provided, and it has been for months per talk, so the burden of evidence is on those who dispute said information to reply in kind. This editor, amidst discussions at 'Canada', was unable or unwilling to convincingly justify their position, and therafter extricated oneself from the morassdiscussion that they instigated. If this is not proof-positive of this editor's disruptive, inchoate style, I don't know what is. I suggest you read the statements at the now withdrawn RfA. Quizimodo (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the burden of evidence always remains on the person seeking for information to be added or retained. I don't think I can be of any more help with this article, so I suggest you post an article request for comment. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the burden of evidence supporting these assertions is already satisfied. This is untenable. If an editor places a 'lopsided' tag but cannot or will not justify why, while continuously challenging said content which is based on a number of reliable sources, that is not my problem and is arguably disruptive. I defer to prior comments. Quizimodo (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As well, your note on my talk page indicates I've been "previously blocked for 3RR violations". No: only once. Please be more attentive in the future. Quizimodo (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a typo. My bad. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the ongoing dickery, hypocrisy, and removal of tags by said editor -- please peruse the talk page and recent edit summaries -- I hereby request that 'Dominion' be locked until disputes are resolved. Thanks. Quizimodo (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That much I can do. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Quizimodo (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fourth generation jet fighter

Thank you for your timely intereceding regarding an edit war mainly over content interpretation. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC). Thank you for your concern over my actions. I shall keep your notification in mind.Freepsbane (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please check the article again. An anon, User:68.199.113.247 may be contravening a block, masquerading as a sock. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC).

I am not sure how one "masquerades" as a sock, but you should use WP:SSP for this. Stifle (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Emergency: Please check Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR History

Please check G2bambino edits at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The History page shows extensive alterations to posted complaints and decisions (see history page). G2bambino has altered the page to make it appear that my posts were spurious, resulting in User:Spartaz blocking me (in good faith) for harassment. G2bambino then reverted to the old postings. This is a blatant case of vandalism. Please compare following with current page:

• ]Stifle last post before alteration including initial complaints and decisions see link
• Final edit by G2bambino showing altered posts see link

G2bambino deliberately altered my posts to the page with intent to misrepresent them. --soulscanner (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration I've referred it over to ANI because I have to go and this is more complicated than I think. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also confused v=but I appreciate your dealing with this. G2bambino 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

It all started when I removed a duplicate post; I accidentally also removed G2bambino's original post which was posted minutes before that. G2bambino was trying to restore his original post at a much later date, and accidentally deleted one of mine. In any case, you didn't see his post when you made your decision. And Humbug! later only saw G2bambino's restored post and my later October post without my report about yesterdays reverts. That made it look like he'd deliberately altered mine. Time for more apologies. Geez, I'm sorry about this. Moral: assume good faith. --soulscanner (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm as bad for jumping into the issue without properly examining everything. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, though, it was my editing mistake that triggered the whole thing. A bunch of people aren't looking too good here because of it. I really should have known better than to weave conspiracy theories. I'll request that a few administrators monitor the Canada and Dominion page for the next little while and keep everyone (including myself) on a very short leash. The issue needs mediation, frankly. I won't edit war or use the 3RR page under any circumstances, not after this. This is a deeply engrained content issue, but it needs to be settled once and for all.--soulscanner (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR noticeboard

Thank you. I'll look into RFCU later today. I think it's pretty clear from his interests and his style. SamEV (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks, Skyring & Wm

I haven't really weighed into the discussion on this article too much but I noticed that Skyring has been blocked for edit warring. A review of his edits to the article show 2 reversions in 3 days and a total of 3 edits in the last 4 days so a block seems a tad harsh to me despite his rather strong opinions on the matter. That, however, is not why I'm posting here. I note that after he was blocked, Wm made an edit to the article, effectively reverting Skyring's edits, using "Skyring blocked for 31 hours for edit warring" as the edit summary, which seems highly inappropriate. He has also posted the message on the article's talk page, which also seems to be inappropriate. If I was to ignore WP:AGF I might think he was gloating going by these comments and that also seems inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Have warned him to be nice. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Skyring is requesting an unblock, and I am inclined to give it to him. He doesn't seem to be edit warring at ALL; since ALL of the edits to the David Hicks situation seem to be at the talk page, save one or two. We should encourage people to use the talk page, which is exactly what he is doing. I am just awaiting your response before acting on this. Do you have any additional evidence to show that this 24 hour block is needed to prevent any real damage to Misplaced Pages? Please respond ASAP so that we can act on this. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed all of his examples and the article as a whole as well as the edits of those who are also involved in the dispute and I agree with Jayron32. I feel this block was not warranted, everything I have read suggests that this user has gone out of his way to avoid edit warring. I am also inclined to support an unblock. Trusilver 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

removal of neutrality tags on Canada page

User:Quizimodo and User:G2Bambino are removing a neutrality tag at the Canada page that I put there to mark the statements that are being discussed at the Dominion page. They know the policy on this. I've warned them about it and filed an incident report. I'm not qoing to get into an edit war on this again, and I'm encouraging other editor to leave the tag off until an administrator can comment. --soulscanner (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)