Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:01, 21 August 2008

This user advocates unified discussion, if you comment here, I will reply on your talk page and move the entire discussion to your talk page in the process; I would prefer it if you did the same, moving the thread back here for your reply. That way the discussions will always stay together and the intended recipient will see the message alert when he or she logs on. If you create a broken discussion by replying here while leaving my comments on your talk page, I may leave the discussion as is and continue the broken discussion, or I may reunite the discussion in my reply, depending on what I think makes more sense. Thanks.

Archives

2007-08 2007-09 2007-10 2007-11 2007-12 2008-01 2008-02 2008-03 2008-04 2008-05 2008-06

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

message

I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC

Monastery and ag

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 00:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A new task force under wikiproject Europe

Hello,

I've noticed that you are active in the area of Europe. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor Assistance Question on Possible Deletion of several articles

(Moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)
Neolibertarian - Right-libertarian -- Left-Rothbardianism - Libertarian center - Libertarian progressivism - Mainstream libertarianism - Thick and thin libertarianism.

These articles really annoy me because IMHO they are:

• Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including especially neologisms and original theories and conclusions
• BLP issues since they claim various individuals are part of their faction without providing evidence

Basically one or a small group of people have created these phrases, use them in their small circles, and then put up articles to advertise and promote their ideas.

It's probably not very libertarian to want to delete them, but is it wikipedian? I need another opinion for my peace of mind and advise on how to proceed with most dubious articles, i.e., one by one or all at once? Carol Moore 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, I agree, they all seem to be neologisms. If you attack Right-libertarian, I would also plan to go after Left-libertarian or explain why not. Neolibertarian looks like nothing but a definition and Mainstream libertarianism has no cites; I would particularly support the idea that they should be deleted. I probably won't be around to participate, and who knows the discussion might change my mind (or yours) but I don't think it's unreasonable to nominate some or all of these for deletion (curious, how did you happen to ask me?)--Doug. 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for comments. I found someone who got rid of Left-Rothbardianism so will be interested in his comments as well. I asked because you were listed in editor assistance as someone who knew a lot about deletions. Carol Moore 23:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think we're on the same line of thinking here

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Individual_discussion_subpages.3F. Care to comment (further)?--Doug. 00:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in any attempt for a ReOrg of sub-pages, I think that it would be more productive to deal with AN/I first. Consider that (at least) more than half of the postings as WP:AN would be placed at AN/I, if AN/I were fixed in such a way as most "incidents" would be funnelled there, I have doubts that there would actually be a need to split AN at all.

Also, note that the talk page of AN/I redirects to the talk page of AN. Hence why I posted my suggestion for AN/I there.

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 00:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Cookie8191

Regarding your indef block of Cookie8191 (talk · contribs)... wat? I checked several edits of his when I commented on the MfD, and most of them were perfectly valid. They might not have been very good, but it wasn't vandalism. I'm very confused at how you came to this conclusion. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(I'll keep this note here on my page as it relates to my performance as an admin)Ned, I reviewed them and they appeared to me to be a consistent string of vandalism of Sesame Street and Looney Tunes articles. Here's one that is very clearly erroneous if you're over 30, no edit summary, no idea where these dates come from, but I'll WP:AGF; then there is this one , which ends the AGF quest. Following that there are a whole string of Chuck Jones related edits, all with no edit summary and no known basis for the edits, claiming every Tune known to WB was created or inspired by Chuck. Finally, if you follow the series you can see that he's following getting reverted with changes to related articles that say similar things. Taken together with the two above, I take them all as vandalism and I see not one valid edit (please provide the ones that you say were). However, if you wish, I'll ask another admin to review what I did.--Doug. 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

IEC Binary Prefix

Hi Doug: Thanks for volunteering to mediate the dispute on the usage of IEC Binary Prefixes. What has happened is that two editors GregL and Fnagaton with the occasional assistance of Headbomb have acted in concert to prevent any indication of a dispute on the usage of IEC Binary Prefixes in Wikepedia. Then then further impose their will at the Binary Prefix article. It is not surprising that GregL and Fnagaton will not agree to mediation, they have everything the way they like it and together bully other editors into submission or acquiescence. Essentially together they use the 3RR rule to prevent any individual editor from raising any question about their view of the world at both the Binary Prefix article and the MOSNOM article. I suspect the next step is arbitration. The alternative is to find 4 or more editors to act in concert as does GregL, et al. How does one go about getting binding arbitration going now that u have closed the mediation case? Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I will watch for a reply here Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You would go to Requests for Arbitration and follow the instructions there (sorry, I've never filed one, so I can't really help). Can you explain what the arguments are for the IEC system? (please do so without telling me that the change goes against consensus or anything of that nature. Consensus is generally a circular argument. You either have it or you don't and arguing you have it is generally pointless. Read some of the essays on consensus for more information on that point.) I can't mediate the case (unless the other parties magically show up and agree) but I may be able to provide you advice one whether to go forward with an RFAR.--Doug. 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

IEC Binary Prefixes when used to disambiguate ambiguous terms such as MB are unambiguous, succinct, simple to use, simple to understand and their use is approved by national and international standards bodies. IMO there is no good reason to deprecate them, but the reasoning seems to be that because they are relatively unknown and infrequently adopted they shouldn't ever by used in Misplaced Pages. A more complete statement of the reasoning is here. Tom94022 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)