Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:01, 21 May 2008

20:16, Monday 30 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

AcappellaHosting

Hello, is there a way to undelete the Buffalo Chips page? We have several published articles about our group, several published albums, references on many websites, and we are ranked in the top 24 groups in the country. I can provide all needed links if asked.

Thank you.

Thank you

I know you didn't vote, but nonetheless...

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)

I think you may be missing a word in your comment there. You write "lack of reliable independent sources about the subject, rather than mere passing mentions. Does meet notability standards". I think you mean "does not meet". JoshuaZ (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Omitting the word "not" does rather change the meaning of a sentence... WjBscribe 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Question re. USURP

Hi,

Sorry to bug you, but I see you're active and I'd like to get a new wikipedian online if possible!

-He registered an account jdzooks

-He wants to change name to "Apostropher Royal"

-He was originally unable to create that name, because it's too similar to "ApostropherRoyal" - which has never been used at all - is completley empty; no user page, no contribs.

-He has just created The Apostropher Royal

I advised him to forget that, and go back to his 'real' account (which has a little history, nothing much, but still)

- do we still have to do all that stuff about notifying the user, waiting 7 days, etc?

Thanks!

--  Chzz  ►  01:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: You are now an administrator

(copied over from my talk page:) :Many thanks. I am very grateful. I will certainly be reading the manual and moving cautiously.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stardoll

Hey, thanks for letting me know about the close here. I've just cut-and-pasted to recreate the article; it was entirely new, so no worries about GFDL with it. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek#Coolcat prohibited from mediating

I am open for suggestions on this. Arbcom has proven to be useless in the matter. -- Cat 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I could be promoted promptly and then demoted right away. -- Cat 19:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, that isn't going to happen. We're not going to help you game an arbitration restriction because you don't agree with it. If you want to be allowed to mediate again, you should do so on your credentials and own merits and this would involve hard work in showing the current mediation committee members that you are able to keep your cool in disputes you're involved in and show a demeanor that is expected of a mediator. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you. Please back off of me for a change. You were willing to give the source of this restriction (Davenbelle/Moby Dick/Jack Merridew) a second chance not too long ago, why not me? What have I done to this community to be mistreated so badly. -- Cat 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As for "demeanor that is expected of a mediator" I have not forgotten our IRC discussion. Don't you patronize me. Enough is enough. -- Cat 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason why I don't forsee you being accepted to join the mediation committee for a long time. You jump head first into disputes and your attitude in them is often wrong for a perspective mediator. In this situation I was trying to offer you advice - we, as a committee, are not going to promote you so you can have the restriction removed. My above advice still stands - if you want to be allowed to mediate again, work hard in areas such as your demeanor and the way you handle yourself in disputes you're involved in. If you do this, then you may well stand a chance of gaining enough support to join MedCom. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Membership of MedCom is not within my gift to grant you even were I to think that was a sensible idea. You are of course welcome to apply but should bear in mind that applications opposed by two or more members of the Committee will be unsuccessful. Your sanction makes it rather difficult for you to gain the experience needed to demonstrate sound mediation abilities, though you could consider mediating disputes on other projects where your ArbCom sanctions do not apply should an opportunity arise. I also note that your recent interaction with MedCom members (I am thinking particularly of Daniel, AGK and Ryan Postlethwaite) lead me to suspect you don't exactly have their wholehearted support.

I commented on your recent appeal that I thought the sanction could be made more narrow in scope. One avenue you could explore would be to locate a dispute you wanted to mediate that was unconnected to Turkish/Kurdish or "episodes and characters" matters, perhaps by keeping an eye on requests going to MedCab. If you spotted something that interested you, and providing I agreed that the subject matter was sufficiently different from areas where you hold strong opinions, I would be willing to ask ArbCom for you to have a special dispensation to mediate that case. If it went well, that would provide a good footing for suggesting that it is to the project's detriment for you not to be allowed to offer your services as a mediator. WjBscribe 16:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Grudge Match

Hi you said you have restored the grudge match article and yet it still takes me back to a list of teenage mutant ninja turtle episodes which is not what I need (I need the one on a website). I was wondering if you could put it back to the website.Father Time89 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Ok I see what you did, although I was wondering if there was someway I could make a disambiguation page for the term grudge match so that I wouldn't have to manually type it in.Father Time89 (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow you're pretty damn fast (seriously I was going to do the same thing but you beat me to it), thanks for the edit.Father Time89 (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

D&D Plant articles

Thanks!  :) BOZ (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Server load

Thanks for the updated information. In this scenario, what would you suggest for users having their username changed repeatedly? I just asked a user to think about a second rename on WP:CHU on the server load grounds. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the fulfilled usurpation. --Fano (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Myanmar to Burma

I truly understand your speechlessness, it is no less speechless than mine earlier today when this all started. Nichalp did not follow up the discussion I was having with him. If he had, this would've continued a calm negotiation with no incidents. However, Nichalp never acknowledged what in my view was a blatant, irresponsible mistake. And in the face of that, plus viewing the opinions of other users who denounced Nichalp's actions, plus having requested advice, I decided to revert his move. The fact that Nichalp is a bureaucrat does not allow him to act unilaterally, trample process, and expect his actions to just sit there. I regret that it had to be me to do it, but I cannot just wait eternally for someone else to do it. Yes, I might have used my admin rights inappropriately in order to revert Nichalp. But, in order to revert a much clearer misuse of tools by another admin, I had little choice. Perhaps this is also the first time I use WP:IAR, in order to revert Nichalp's own application of WP:IAR. But I am sorry that I disappointed you. Shouldn't happen too often. :-) Regards, Húsönd 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I will revert my move. I think I did the right thing, but I shall wait for someone else to do it. If nobody does, then I'll come here and tell you that I was right in doing it because nobody else would. But, I will revert it now. I understand your concerns and yes, I acknowledge that I'm not the best person to restore everything like it was. I'm being extremely neutral and just trying to restore things back to process, but given my previous participation in the whole Burma versus Myanmar debate, I understand that my neutral, good faith appealing statements count for naught and I can easily be accused of bias. Furthermore, I cannot bear to disappoint someone. I feared that when I moved the article back to Burma, and now I feel an urge to move it back again. Like the less of two evils. Regards, Húsönd 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only see it as a clear sign that this had to be done. Nichalp did something very wrong by going against process, it's just natural that other admins will revert. Frankly, I believe that if Nichalp weren't a bureaucrat, his move would've been reverted much quicker and with less controversy. Húsönd 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's in the same situation as me, having voiced before for this article to stay at Burma. But, I can totally understand his action regardless of his bias. There was a violation of the process, undoing it should not immediately imply bias. I've been witnessing quite a few situations lately when admins will more rapidly be accused of bias instead of given proper focus on the righteousness of their actions. Too much WP:IAR and too little WP:AGF. Húsönd 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some comments regarding your comments:

• Nichalp may not be that involved in Burma, but he's not all that unbiased on this kind of issue. If you check this discussion from a long time ago, you'll see that Nichalp supports moving articles according to new names issued by their authorities, such as "Kolkata", which he directly mentions. Burma is also often mentioned in this discussion. Quoting Nichalp, "it would be sheer ignorance on the part of most media publications not to switch over to the new names". If he thinks so of media publications, why would he think differently on Misplaced Pages?
• A fairly standard process would have been "a consensus finding discussion on the talkpage", yes. This did not happen. Well, it did, but on a subpage of a talk page. How many interested users were even aware of the existence of that subpage? Well, at least not me, and most likely the majority of interested users.
• I don't view my action as hypocritical. One thing is to remind Nichalp that he is wheel warring with another admin by acting unilaterally and against process, and another very different thing is to revert such actions. In fact, unless Nichalp reverts himself, there will always be an admin wheel warring with him in order to have this article return to Burma. The focus should be not on who's wheel warring with who, but who did the wrong thing and who's fixing it.
• I hope MJCdetroit will also self-revert his move. Not because I think he's wrong, but for the sake of peace. But I am rather disturbed at your mention of blocks or requesting an urgent desysopping. I don't think none of us represents a menace to the project nor I think any of us will keep reverting each other.
• I understand your concern that there was no urgency for the article to be moved back to Burma, but at the same time I have my own concerns that delaying that return could result in the article remaining effectively in Myanmar due to drama, lack of interest at ANI, etc, perpetuating a blatant violation of process.
• I acknowledge and agree with your bottom line of admin conduct.

Regards, Húsönd 03:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am very disappointed at your comment at ANI comparing my conduct here with Nichalp's, as being far more problematic than his. I was not expecting this. Húsönd 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I do regrettably admit that you have taken me by surprise. You seem to minimize Nichalp's action under every possible perspective, while at the same time appearing to maximize my wrongdoing. I did what I believed was right- fixing a flagrant mistake. But now I'm the bad guy apparently. That's okay I guess. I'm looking forward to participate in your newly created debate once the article is moved back to Burma. After all, there's no need to participate in a process if someone will just decide to scrap it months later. Regards, Húsönd 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's 6:00am where I live and I'm very, very sleepy so I'll have to write a proper reply tomorrow. But I must say that the bold type was not meant to be angry shouting, instead emphasis on a particular word in a sentence. I was going to write in CAPS but then I thought that would look like shouting. Apparently I got the same result anyway. Not on purpose. Till tomorrow. Regards, Húsönd 04:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Husönd when it comes to the bias of Nichalp, who pretends that "Burma supporters" are more politically motivated than "Myanmar supporters". You do not need to look very far into Nichalp's edit history to realize that he is far from neutral in this discussion.--Amban (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought that I'd wake up this morning (afternoon) wishing that I didn't have to return to this but I'm actually feeling very tranquil and looking forward to continue. So, replying to your last comment on my talk page:

• I sort of disagree with you when you say that there was no abuse of the tools (as if Nichalp's move of a move-protected page, bypassing process and consensus would not constitute a violation). It may not have been a straightforward, intentional abuse of the tools, but what we have in effect is an inadequate application of the admin tools. I'm not sure if the word "abuse" would be the right one to qualify Nichalp's usage of the tools in this situation, but "misuse" I think would qualify well. But, I should stress that I don't think that Nichalp carried out that misuse on purpose. In my view, he was doing what he thought was best, and that's perfectly legitimate. Unfortunately, I think that what he thought was best turned out to be anything but.
• Your saying that I "will boycott any future consensus finding exercise unless you get your own way now" is once again distorting the situation by making me look like the main disruptor here. I have absolutely no problem with the creation of a new process to determine consensus, and I applaud your initiate. However, I think that I am being very plausible to personally refuse to join a new process when the one we had before has just been destroyed unilaterally. Unless the last process is respected and restored, I cannot find a single reason on why should I or anyone else trust the outcome of a new process. Why do you refer to my view as "getting my own way"? My way is to have consensus and process maintained. That's not just my way, that should be (or used to be) everyone's way on Misplaced Pages. Why don't you comment on Nichalp getting his own way? Why do you acknowledge that he didn't act the way he should have, while at the same time viewing the natural consequences of his actions as the main root of this whole controversy? You raise some good points, such as that this didn't require an urgent reaction, or that the reverting admins are not uninvolved, etc, but while you assume good faith on Nichalp (as I do), you seem to fail to assume good faith on those who were just fixing what you know was wrong. And I think that's neither the right nor the fair approach.
• No, I don't think that my behavior on this particular situation provided a good example of an admin's conduct. But, I'm glad that I am still capable of realizing my mistakes on time, and fixing them. Something that I wish I would see more often on Misplaced Pages.
• I think I'm seeing all the shades of gray, but you may be right that I'm being quite intransigent. Not because I can't see both sides, but because I think that one side is clearly the righteous. Regardless of my bias on preferring the article to be named Burma, I cannot withdraw and cannot be asked to withdraw my principle that on Misplaced Pages things can only run smoothly if a user or a group of users will not have the power to make their own rules and act against consensus and process. Misplaced Pages would collapse in that scenario. We're all unpaid volunteers here, so the least we can expect is that we'll work together as a community. We're hold together by community consensus. We function through community consensus. Hopefully we're still not in the times when a user can decide for everyone else. That's what Nichalp did, and all out of honesty you appear to be condoning that.
• I should end my boring dissertation by adding that last night I reflected on what caused me to revert Nichalp at that particular time, not before and not after. I've reached a conclusion that I can tell you on an e-mail if you're interested.

I hope that none of my words has sounded bitter. I have no anger whatsoever, but as you know things we write will sometimes sound very differently than what they would if spoken instead. I am an extremely calm person by nature and my tone is a bit like the Dalai Lama's (with less charisma). :-) Regards, Húsönd 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Nichalp's move starts to have expected repercussions: the discussion at WP:ANI has died out and now this. Húsönd 21:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to remark that this episode has reflected embarrassing naivete on your part. To review what's happened, here's the steps that have been laid out for future users to follow:

1. Modify a protected page to reflect your preferred version.
2. Complain that others who edit the page are edit warring/wheel warring.
3. Now that your preferred version is in place, it's time for discussion and a moratorium on further changes.
4. Use the time your preferred version is in place to make it a fait accompli, for instance by propagating changes across the wiki or by establishing your version as a status quo requiring consensus to overturn.

I don't believe this is compatible with the principle of consensus as we normally regard it, but we can't expect people to engage in time-consuming and complex discussion when unilateralism is demonstrated to be highly effective. I am troubled by the idea that this way of operating would be established as the standard procedure. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Nichalp researched the views of other editors. This is exactly why he should have been aware that there was a dispute, that there was no clear consensus on the issue, and that the page was protected from moves because of the ongoing dispute. Seeing that you are well aware of the necessity of accepting the "wrong version", I'm disappointed that you are giving Nichalp a free pass for modifying the protected version, by helping to ensure that his change in the fact of protection stays in place. Apparently the exception to the protection policy is when an admin feels one side has a "clearer and logical view"? I think that his edits past and present establish that he is not a neutral party in this case, even if he was relatively uninvolved in the actual dispute. For instance this edit takes a very direct stance on the issues at hand, and frankly his statement of why he moved the article isn't the words of a neutral closer of a discussion but of someone who is articulating one of the two viewpoints at hand here: "If the country is officially called by a new name in the English language by its political masters, Misplaced Pages must reflect it." That statement of opinion is not at all compatible with neutrality in assessing the dispute.

I agree with you that getting more users involved is the best hope to get an actual resolution of the issue, but this is not what I am talking about. That discussion will take some time and for now (in a very high profile period) the article needs to be at one location or another. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo

I figured it is equally courteous to both do this and inform you of it too. Nice name by the way. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That typo appears to have gone unnoticed for some time... WjBscribe 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)